174 So. 608 | Ala. | 1937
This is the second appeal in this case, Sullivan v. Parker et al.,
True, in the former opinion, there is the statement that Mrs. Parker testified she paid the McCoy mortgage "with funds of her own," but this was inaccurate and a mere inference as she testified as to where she got the money to pay McCoy, "me and my kids worked for it and sold a mule and got part of the money, my husband owned the mule when he died." Moreover, the additional evidence after the case was reversed shows that the McCoy debt was paid from the property of the *180 estate or jointly by some of the children and heirs.
It must be observed that this redemption was made prior to any change in the law of redemption as appears in the Code of 1923 (Code 1923, § 10140), and this opinion is only in response to the single issue insisted upon by appellant's counsel.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.