Court Opinion

ID: 9671358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:35:07.112591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.507100
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
STAKELY, Justice.
Citing Stoutz v. Rouse, 84 Ala. 309, 4 So. 170; A. M. Robinson Co. v. Anniston Land Co., 217 Ala. 648, 117 So. 29, and Richardson v. Curlee, 229 Ala. 505, 158 So. 189, it is argued with considerable ingenuity on application for rehearing that the rules applicable to contemporaneous release of rights of redemption in the case of a mortgage, are peculiarly analogous to the situation in the case at bar. The foregoing cases hold that a mortgagor cannot at the time of execution of the mortgage make a contract not to exercise his equity of redemption. The theory is that “the right of redemption is the creature of law and not of contract.”
We do not consider that the cited authorities are contrary to the holding of the original opinion in this case. The right given under § 15, Title 20, Code of 1940, is a creature of law but is peculiarly based on a contract. It is only when a material part of the consideration of a conveyance of realty is the agreement of the grantee to support the grantor during life that the law writes a condition into the deed under the statute, so that the deed is void at the option of the grantor. In other words the right of redemption is a creature of laiw not based on contract, while the right to rescind the deed under § 15, Title 20, Code of 1940, is' the result of a contract. We see no reason why'the contradi may not be changed by a subsequent agreement between the parties. If it is so changed, then the subsequent agree-' ment should be upheld.
The application for rehearing is overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.