Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

BIXLER v. ZEIDMAN et al.

PER CURIAM.

In this case a bill in equity was filed to foreclose a mortgage on personal property. After a decree of foreclosure, ordering a sale of the property, appellant filed a petition of intervention claiming an interest in the property and proceeds of sale. This claim was based upon facts alleged in the petition. The allegations of the petition were denied by answer. In this state of the pleading, the burden was on appellant, as intervener, to prove those allegations. The evidence was taken orally in the presence of the court, and certified by the court reporter. There was no note of testimony. This court has held a note of testimony necessary under these circumstances. Lunday v. Jones, 204 Ala. 326, 85 So. 411; Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347; Blackburn v. Moore, 206 Ala. 335, 89 So. 745; Crews v. State, 206 Ala. 101, 89 So. 205.

Adhering to that rule, we have here a situation where the intervener has no evidence to sustain the allegations of his petition. Under such circumstances, the court was without error in denying appellant relief. We must therefore affirm the decree.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BIXLER v. ZEIDMAN
(Dec 20, 1928)