Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: S. V. M. Ray, for Appellants;
Redfearn Ferrell, for Appellees.
Filed: Apr. 21, 1930
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 542 Appellants, two of the defendants below, appealed from a final decree and order confirming sale in foreclosure proceeding. The appeal from final decree was not made to operate as a supersedeas until after sale and confirmation thereof. It was suggested that the court below seeks to: (1) Issue writ of assistance to dispossess appellants, (2) Issue rule nis
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 542 Appellants, two of the defendants below, appealed from a final decree and order confirming sale in foreclosure proceeding. The appeal from final decree was not made to operate as a supersedeas until after sale and confirmation thereof. It was suggested that the court below seeks to: (1) Issue writ of assistance to dispossess appellants, (2) Issue rule nisi..
More
The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14533, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the rule heretofore issued in this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed, the defendants discharged therefrom, and the application for writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.
TERRELL, C. J., AND WHITFIELD, ELLIS, STRUM, BROWN AND BUFORD, J. J., concur.
