DURWOOD WHITTLE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ADDIE LONG, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, &C., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a mortgage lien foreclosure suit that was improperly initiated in the name of a deceased person. The court reversed the final decree against the defendants because they were not properly notified of a significant amendment to the lawsuit, thus denying them their day in court.
Yes, the decree is erroneous because the defendants were not properly notified of the substitution of the complainant and thus were denied their opportunity to be heard.
“As the suit was irregularly brought in the name of a deceased person as the sole complainant, and as after decree pro confesso a real party was made the sole complainant, no notice thereof being served on the defendants and they in no wise appeared in the cause and the appellants not having had their day in court as to this amendment, the decree against them is erroneous, and on their appeal such decree is reversed.”
This quote explains the primary reasons for reversing the lower court's decree.
A foreclosure suit was filed in the name of a deceased mortgagee. Process was served on the defendants, who did not appear, leading to a decree pro co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice To Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
A suit to enforce' a mortgage lien upon land was brought in the name of the mortgagee who was then deceased, and service of process was made upon the defendants who did not appear. A decree pro confesso was entered for failure to plead, answer or demur. Subsequently the successor in title to the mortgagee, upon petition, no notice of which was served on the defendants, was admitted and made the sole complainant. Testimony was taken for the complainant, the defendants not appearing in the cause before final decree against them from which they appealed.
As the suit was irregularly brought in the name of a deceased person as the sole complainant, and as after decree pro eonfesso a real party was made the sole complainant, no notice thereof being served on the defendants and they in no wise appeared in the cause and the appellants not having had their day in court as to this amendment, the decree against them is erroneous, and on their appeal such decree is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, CocKRior.r. and Hocker, J. J., concur.