Court Opinion

ID: 3223551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 15:59:38.720013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:59.315509
License: Public Domain

The original bill was by the mortgagor to enjoin a sale of the property under the mortgage, sought an accounting and the payment of the mortgage debt. Respondent answered and sought by cross-bill affirmative relief; that is, the foreclosure of the mortgage. A cross-bill, or answer in the nature of a cross-bill, was essential to a foreclosure and which could not be decreed without same. Bedell v. New Eng. Mtg. Secty. Co.,91 Ala. 325, 8 So. 494; Ketchum v. Creagh, 53 Ala. 224; Davis v. Cook, 65 Ala. 617.
The fact that a mortgage contains a power of sale does not deprive an equity court of jurisdiction of an action to foreclose, and the mortgagee may file a crossbill to foreclose when the original bill seeks an injunction and cancellation. Vaughan v. Marable, 64 Ala. 60. The mortgage expressly provides for an attorney's fee for a foreclosure in equity.
The trial court did not err in overruling the appellants' demurrer to the cross-bill, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SOMERVILLE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.