Court Opinion

ID: 9825455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:01:58.403295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:50.365860
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Upon further consideration of this case, the writer reached the conclusion that he had, in the discussion of the law applicable to the main question involved, overlooked our more recent' cases interpretating Section 9010 of the Code. In view of this fact, the case has been restored to the rehearing docket, and is now before the court for further consideration.
In the original opinion the following statement' appears: “The record fails to show an efficacious transfer of the mortgage in question to the plaintiff. His right of foreclosure depended thereon, and this failure may not be supplied by his foreclosure deed.”
Under Section 9010 of the Code, as construed by this court, it is not necessary that the transfer of a mortgage should contain apt operative words of conveyance to entitle the transferee to foreclose the mortgage, but any person who, by assignment or otherwise, becomes entitled to the money secured by the mortgage, may foreclose the same; and a conveyance of the lands sold under such power of sale to the purchaser at the sale, executed by the mortgagee, any assignee or other person entitled to the money thus secured, his agent or attorney, or the auctioneer making the sale, vests the legal title thereto' in the purchaser.
Section 9010 of the Code enlarges the effect of the power of sale in the mortgage which passes with the debt, and when exercised has the effect of a foreclosure in equity, wherein all parties are present. But until the power is exercised, an assignment without apt words of conveyance leaves the legal title in the mortgagee. This, of course, implies that upon foreclosure, when the assignment is made without apt words of conveyance, a proper deed must be executed to the purchaser by the assignee of the mortgage making the foreclosure. *630Simpson v. James R. Crowe Post No. 27, American Legion, 230 Ala. 487, 161 So. 705.
The record shows that Ogden, assignee (though the assignment to him was without apt words of conveyance), duly foreclosed the mortgage, and executed to himself a proper 'conveyance to the lands. This, then, vested in said Ogden the legal title to the lands, which he could assert in his action at law.
It follows, therefore, that we were in error in holding in our former opinion that Ogden’s right of foreclosure depended upon the assignment executed to him containing apt words of conveyance. While the assignment to Ogden was not sufficient per se to operate to transfer the legal title of the mortgagees to him; nevertheless it was quite sufficient to authorize Ogden, the assignee, to foreclose the mortgage and to acquire by purchase at the sale; and by the foreclosure deed the legal title.
This conclusion, therefore, results in granting a rehearing, setting aside our former judgment of reversal, and in affirming the judgment of the court below. It is so ordered.
Rehearing granted; former judgment of reversal set aside, and judgment of the circuit court affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.