Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Miriam B. RICHARDSON et al., Appellants, v. W. B. HARBESON et al., Appellees, 1929 — 35 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
General
Miriam B. RICHARDSON et al., Appellants, v. W. B. HARBESON et al., Appellees
35 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Miriam B. RICHARDSON et al., Appellants, v. W. B. HARBESON et al., Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 1, 1929.
No. 5625.
Fred S. Ball and Eugene Ballard, both of Montgomery, Ala. (Eugene Ballard and Ball & Ball, all of Montgomery, Ala., on the brief), for appellants.
B. P. Crum and Leon Weil, both of Montgomery, Ala. (Steiner, Crum &. Weil, of Montgomery, Ala., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage given by the appellant Miriam B. Richardson and her husband on land owned by the former to seeure a debt described in the mortgage. The granting of the relief sought was resisted on the ground that the debt to secure which the mortgage was given was not the debt of the wife, but was the conditional debt of the husband, with the result that the mortgage was unenforceable because of the provision of the Alabama statute that “the wife shall not, directly or indirectly, become the surety for the husband.”. Code of Alabama 1923, § 8272. The court found from the evidence that the debt to secure which the mortgage was given was the debt of the wife, and ruled against the defense set up. We are of opinion that the evidence warranted that conclusion, and that no valid defense was proved. We think there is no occasion to set out the evidence or to comment on it further.
The decree is affirmed.