chancellor rule in Alabama

1932Bedell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 91 Ala. 325 , 8 So. 494 ; American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. McCall, 96 Ala. 200 , 11 So. 288 .” The allowance of attorney’s fees as a part of the secured debt is “dependent upon the agreement of the contracting parties, withim, the terms of which the claim for fees must fall,” is the observation in Eslava v. New York National Building & Loan Ass’n, 121 Ala. 480, 484 , 25 So. 1013 , 1015.

1895Bedell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 91 Ala. 325 ; American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v.McCall, 96 Ala. 200 .

1932Bedell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 91 Ala. 325 , 8 So. 494 ; American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. McCall, 96 Ala. 200 , 11 So. 288 .” The allowance of attorney’s fees as a part of the secured debt is “dependent upon the agreement of the contracting parties, withim, the terms of which the claim for fees must fall,” is the observation in Eslava v. New York National Building & Loan Ass’n, 121 Ala. 480, 484 , 25 So. 1013 , 1015.

1895Bedell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 91 Ala. 325 ; American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v.McCall, 96 Ala. 200 .

1997Indeed, in the specific context of land purchases, our supreme court has enforced an absolute duty of reimbursement: "When an agent employs the money or property of his principal in the purchase of lands, without the knowledge or consent of the latter, taking the title in his own name or in the name of a third person, at the election of the principal he may be made personally liable, or the money may be followed into the land, and a lien asserted on the land for the reimbursement of the principal , or a trust of the legal estate will result by implication of law." Long v. King , 117 Ala. 423 ,

1997Indeed, in the specific context of land purchases, our supreme court has enforced an absolute duty of reimbursement: "When an agent employs the money or property of his principal in the purchase of lands, without the knowledge or consent of the latter, taking the title in his own name or in the name of a third person, at the election of the principal he may be made personally liable, or the money may be followed into the land, and a lien asserted on the land for the reimbursement of the principal, or a trust of the legal estate will result by implication of law." Long v. King, 117 Ala. 423, 42

1933Canty v. Bixler, 185 Ala. 109 , 64 So. 583 ; Alexander v. Hill, supra. The chancellor held that the rule of laches applied to all the wards, because of the following circumstances: Two of them had waited 3 to 5 years, and two, 11 to 12 years, after attaining full age, before instituting a proceeding to coerce a settlement, and not until the guardian, their father, had become insolvent; that he had received the bulk of the money about 18 years before the first proceeding was begun, and about 22 years before the other three joined in it, and had reared and educated the wards; and at the trial he

1933Canty v. Bixler, 185 Ala. 109 , 64 So. 583 ; Alexander v. Hill, supra. The chancellor held that the rule of laches applied to all the wards, because of the following circumstances: Two of them had waited 3 to 5 years, and two, 11 to 12 years, after attaining full age, before instituting a proceeding to coerce a settlement, and not until the guardian, their father, had become insolvent; that he had received the bulk of the money about 18 years before the first proceeding was begun, and about 22 years before the other three joined in it, and had reared and educated the wards; and at the trial he

1932Bedell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 91 Ala. 325 , 8 So. 494 ; American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. McCall, 96 Ala. 200 , 11 So. 288 .” The allowance of attorney’s fees as a part of the secured debt is “dependent upon the agreement of the contracting parties, withim, the terms of which the claim for fees must fall,” is the observation in Eslava v. New York National Building & Loan Ass’n, 121 Ala. 480, 484 , 25 So. 1013 , 1015.

1931Davidson et al. v. Rice, 201 Ala. 508 , 78 So. 862 .

1931Davidson et al. v. Rice, 201 Ala. 508 , 78 So. 862 .

1912In the later case of Hamilton v. Brent Lumber Co., 127 Ala. 78, 84 , 28 South. 698 , the court held that the chancellor was in error in decreeing that the complainant had the constructive possession, basing it upon “the doctrine which refers the possession to the title,” because the court of equity has no jurisdiction to determine the title, yet, although there was no averment in the bill that the complainant was in possession, and no proof of possession, in him, but it Avas shown to the .satisfaction of the court that the respondent was in actual possession of the land, this court rendered a

1910On the other hand, this court refused to declare the chancellor in error for refusing to confirm a sale, in a case seeking to foreclose a deed of trust, wherein the evidence was in conflict with regard to the value of the property, with the weight probably in favor of confirming the sale; but the fact established that a much larger price will be paid for the property on resale.— Montague et al. v. International Trust Co. 142 Ala. 544 , 38 South. 1025 .

1910Also, on.a bill by one tenant in common for a sale for partition, this court refused to disturb the decree of the chancellor overruling objections to the confirmation of a sale, though there were affidavits to the effect that the land was worth twice as much as sold for, because there was “no guaranty that, upon a resale, it should fetch a higher price than was obtained. ”—Cock rell v. Coleman’s Adm'r, 55 Ala. 583, 589 .