« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
assignee leaves the property subject to be taken in satisfaction of any subsisting lien thereon, to the same extent that it might be taken if in the hands of the execution defendant: Stein v. Chambless, 18 Iowa, 474; 87 Am. Dec 411; Curtis v. Millard, 14 Iowa, 128; 81 Am. Dec. 460. The trustees of an abu sent debtor may redeem from an execution sale against him; but a stranger is not entitled to redeem: Phyfe v. Riley, 15 Wend. 248; 30 Am. Dec. 55. General creditors who have not reduced their claims to judgment and who have no lien on the property are not entitled to redeem from an execution sale: 2 Freeman on Executions, sec. 317; Thomason v. Scales, 12 Ala 309; Woods v. McGavock, 10 Yerg. 133; Hopkins v. Webb, 9 Humph. 519.
The owner of a judgment, whether he is the plaintiff in whose favor it was rendered or his assignee, has the right to redeem: Couthnay v. Berghaus, 25 Ala. 393; Sweezy v. Chandler, 11 Ill. 445; Martin v. Judd, 60 IIl. 78; Arnold v. Gifford, 62 Ill. 250; Seevers v. Wood, 12 Iowa, 295; Van Rensselaer v. Sheriff, 1 Cow. 443; Snyder v. Warren, 2 Cow. 518; 14 Am. Dec. 519; Ex parte Newell, 4 Hill, 608; Ec parte Raymond, 1 Denio, 272; Beekman v. Випп, Hill & D. 265; Aylesworth v. Brown, 10 Barb. 167. A judgment creditor cannot redeem from his own sale: 2 Freeman on Executions, sec. 317; Clayton v. Ellis, 50 Iowa, 590; Hayden v. Smith, 58 Iowa, 285; Ex parte Paddock, 4 Hill, 544; Ex parte Stevens, 4 Cow. 133; Russell v. Allen, 10 Paige, 249; People v. Easton, 2 Wend. 297. And this rule is applied where the plaintiffs and others obtain a decree subjecting certain property to the payment of their judgments in the order of their priority, and one execution issues in the name of all, and the execution sale is for the benefit of all, but the proceeds are exhausted in paying prior judgments: Hayden v. Smith, 58 Iowa, 285. A judgment creditor may redeem notwithstanding he may have other adequate securities for the protection of his debt: Fletcher v. Holmes, 25 Ind 458; Muir v. Leitch, 7 Barb. 341.
WHO MAY REDEEM FROM FORECLOSURE SALE. — Generally speaking, any party who has an interest in the property sold under foreclosure proceedings may redeem from the sale. But to sustain a bill to redeem, the plaintiff must have the mortgagor's title, or some subsisting interest under it: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1055; Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., 64 Ala. 330; Butts v. Broughton, 72 Ala. 294; Powers v. Golden Lumber Co., 43 Mich. 468; Boare man v. Catlett, 13 Smedes & M. 149; Grant v. Duane, 9 Johns. 59; Chamber. lin v. Chamberlin, 44 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 116; Lomax v. Bird, 1 Vern. 182. He Deed not, however, be interested in the whole of the premises sold, nor is it necessary that he shonld have a title in fee in the premises, in order to entitle bim to releem. If he is in privity in title with the mortgagor, and has such an interest that he would be a loser by the foreclosure, he may redeem: Pearce v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. App. Cas. 227; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 112;
Squire, 12 Met. 494; Farnham v. Metcalf, 8 Cush. 46; Smith v. Aus. tin, 9 Mich. 465; Doarman v. (allell, 21 Miss. 149; Brewer v. Hyndman, 18 N. H. 9; Moore v. Beasom, 44 N. H. 215; Boqut v. Coburn, 27 Barb. 230; In re Willard, 6 Wend. 94; Purris v. Brown, 4 Ired. Eq. 413; Selwood v. Gray, 11 Or. 534. In delivering the opinion of the court in Smith 6. Austin, 9 Mich. 474, Christiancy, J., said: But the interest required as the basis of a right to re leem need not be the fee subject to the mortgage, or the whole of the mortgagor's original equity of relemption (except in some cases of a statnte redemption thus liinited). Any person who may lave acquired any interest in the preinises, legal or equitable, by operation of law or other. wise, in privity of title with the mortgagor, may redeem, and protect such luterest in the land: Story's Eq. Jur., sec. 1023. But it must be an interest
in the land, and it must be derived in some way, mediate or immediate, from, or through, or in the right of the mortgagor, so as, in effect, to constitute a part of the mortgagor's original equity of redemption. Otherwise it cannot be affected by the mortgage, and needs no redemption." But the right to redeem exists only in favor of one who has such an interest that the right to redeem is necessary to its protection: Buser v. Shepard, 107 Ind. 417. In general, only the mortgagor and those holding the legal title ander him can redeem; an equitable title does not give the right, and therefore the holder of a bond for a deed from the mortgagor cannot maintain a bill to redeem: McDougald v. Capron, 7 Gray, 278; Grant v. Duane, 9 Johns. 591; Lomax v. Bird, 1 Vern. 182; Fray v. Drew, 11 Jur., N. S., 130. A mortgagor who has by a warranty deed conveyed the equity of redemption to a third person cannot maintain a bill to redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, seo. 1056; True v. Haley, 24 Me. 297; Elder v. True, 32 Me. 104; Phillips v. Leavitt, 54 Me. 405.
An equity of redemption cannot be sold on execution to satisfy the debt Becured by the mortgage, and if such a sale be made, the mortgagor will still have the power to redeem, just as if no such sale had been made: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1056; Atkins v. Sawyer, 1 Pick. 351; 11 Am. Deo. 188, note 193–198; Washburn v. Goodwin, 17 Pick. 137.
If a second mortgagee forecloses a mortgagor's equity of redemption, the mortgagor cannot redeem from the first mortgage, for his title is wholly ex. tinguished, and vested in the second mortgagee, who alone has the right to redeem from the first mortgage: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1057; Colwell v. Warner, 36 Conn. 224. But if the first mortgagee forecloses the mortgago without making the second mortgagee a party to the suit, the second morto gagee may redeem from the first mortgage, and the mortgagor may, by redeeming from the second mortgage, acquire the right of the second mortgagee to redeem from the first: Goodman v. White, 26 Conn. 317.
The right of a mortgagor to redeem is not affected by the fact that he may have had no title to the mortgaged property: Lorenzana v. Camarillo, 45 Cal. 125. A mortgagor has a right to redeem, where the mortgagee becomes the purchaser under a sale by virtue of a power contained in the inortgage: Ben. ham v. Rowe, 2 Cal. 387; 56 Am. Dec. 342. But the whole amount due upon the mortgage must be paid before the mortgaged property can be redeemed by a mortgagor who is tenant in common with the mortgagee of the mortgaged premises: Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray, 276; 71 Am. Dec. 713. In Massachusetts, where a mortgage of lands contains a power of sale, the mortgagor may, after a breach of the condition of the mortgage, and before a sale of the premises conveyed by it has actually taken place, without a previous tender, bring a bill in equity to redeem, on offering in the bill to pay the amount due: Way v. Mullett, 143 Mass. 49.
The grantee of the equity of redemption has the same right to redeem as the mortgagor himself had: Bradley v. Snyder, 14 Ill. 263; 58 Am. Dec. 564; Stockell v. Taylor, 3 Md. Ch. 537; Frische v. Kramer's Lessee, 16 Ohio, 125; 47 Am. Dec. 368. And where, upon a foreclosure of a mortgage, the mortgagee purchases the land for a sum less than the amount of the judgment, and dockets a judgınent for the deficiency, the purchaser from the mortgagor of the land, pending the time for redemption, is entitled as successor in in. terest to releem from the mortgagee, without paying the amount of the defi. cincy: Simpson v. Castle, 52 Cal. 644. And the purchaser of the equity of redemption sold under execution has the right to redeem: Walson v. Steele, 78 Ala. 361; Julian v. Bell, 26 Ind. 220; 89 Am. Dec. 460; Coombs v. Carr, nö Ind. 303; Wellington v. Gale, 13 Mass. 483; Atkins v. Sawyer, 1 Pick. 351; Il Am. Dec. 188; Raymond v. Holborn, 23 Wis. 67; 99 Am. Dec. 105; 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1069.
So, also, is an assignee of the equity of redemption entitled to redeem: Thorne v. Thorne, 1 Vern. 182; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 112; Barnard v. Cush. man, 35 Ill. 451; Rogers v. Meyers, 68 III. 92; Banks v. McClellan, 24 Md. 623 87 Am. Dec. 594; White v. Bond, 16 Mass. 400; Hepburn v. Kerr, 9 Humph. 726; 51 Am. Dec. 685; Lloyd v. Hoo Sue, 5 Saw. 74. Where a mortgages assigns his mortgage as security for the payment of a debt due from him to the assignoo, the assignment is in effect a mortgage of the mortgage; and if the assignee forecloses the mortgage and buys in the mortgaged premises, the assignor is entitled to redeem from him: Slee v. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige, 48; Hoyt v. Martense, 16 N. Y. 231; Winterbottom v. Tayloe, 2 Drew. 279. So, too, an attaching creditor has the right to redeem: Town of Bridgeport v. Blinn, 43 Conn. 274; Briggs v. Davis, 108 Mass. 322; Chandler v. Dyer, 37 Vt. 345.
A judgment creditor of the mortgagor has the right to redeem without baving had an execution issued or the land sold. But a general crec whose claim has not been reduced to judgment and made a lien on the mortgaged premises cannot redeeni: Mildred v. Austin, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 220; Con. necticut M. L. I. Co. v. Crawford, 21 Fed. Rep. 281; Cramer v. Watson, 73 Ala. 127; Seals v. Pheiffer, 77 Ala. 278; Fitch v. Wetherbee, 110 Ill. 475; Hitt v. Holliday, 2 Litt. 332; White v. Bond, 16 Mass. 400; Mallalieu v. Wickham, 42 N. J. Eq. 297; Benedict v. Gilman, 4 Paige, 58; Van Buren v. Olmıstead, 5 Paige, 9; Dauchy v. Bennett, 7 How. Pr. 375; Bank of Niagara v. Rosevrlt, 9 Cow. 409; Brainard v. Cooper, 10 N. Y. 356; Stainback v. Geddy, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 479; 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1069.
A junior mortgagee has the right to redeem from a sale made under a senior mortgage: Wiley v. Ewing, 47 Ala. 418; Scott v. Henry, 13 Ark. 112; Frink v. Murphy, 21 Cal. 108; 81 Am. Dec. 149; Morse v. Smith, 83 lll. 396; Rogers v. Herron, 92 Ill. 583; Hervey v. Krost, 116 Ind. 268; Gaskell v. Viquesney, 122 Ind. 244; 17 Am. St. Rep. 364; Crossen v. White, 19 Iowa, 109; 87 Am. Dec. 420; Manning v. Markel, 19 Iowa, 103; Anson v. Anson, 20 Iowa, 55; 89 Am Dec. 514; Gower v. Winchester, 33 Iowa, 303; American Buttonhole etc. Co. v. Burlington L. L. Ass'n, 61 Iowa, 464; Bunce v. West, 62 Iowa, 80; Spurgin r. Adamson, 62 Iowa, 661; Dickerman v. Lust, 66 Iowa, 444; Bigelow v. Willson, I Pick. 485; Kimmell v. Willard, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 217; Sager v. Tupper, 35 Mich. 134; Lamb v. Jeffrey, 41 Mich. 719; Hill v. White, 1 N. J. Eq. 435; Haines v. Beach, 3 Johns. Ch. 459; Pardee v. Van Auken, 3 Barb. 534; Jen. kins v. Continental Ins. Co., 12 How. Pr. 66; Ellsworth v. Lockwood, 42 N. Y. 89; Frost v. Yonkers 8. Bank, 70 N. Y. 553; 26 Am. Rep. 627; 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1064.
A grantor by an absolute deed which is in fact a mortgage has the same right to redeem as a mortgagor in a formal mortgage would have, so long as the grantee retains the property: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1060; Eiseman v. Gallagher, 24 Neb. 79; Vanderhnise v. Hugues, 13 N. J. Eq. 410; Whittick v. Kane, 1 Paige, 202; Meehan v. Forrester, 52 N. Y. 277; Ballard v. Jones, 6 Humph. 455; Still v. Buzzell, 60 Vt. 478. But a purchaser at an execution sale, seeking to redeem from a trust deed which is a prior lien, cannot ask for relief from a penalty provided by such trust deed: Blair v. Chamberlin, 39 IN. 521; 89 Am. Dec. 322. A conveyance by a debtor, in trust, to secure his debt is to be considered as a mortgage from which he has a right to redeem: Chowning v. Coco, 1 Rand. 306; 10 Am. Dec. 530; Pennington v. Hanby, 4 Munf. 140. If a grantee in a deed absolute in form, but really a mortgage, conveys to a bona fide purchaser, he must make good the loss to the grantor by reason of his loss of his right to redeem his land: Meehan v. Forrester, 52 N. Y. 277; Whitlick v. Kane, 1 Paige, 202.
A tenant in common or owner of an undivided interest in an equity of redemption may redeem, but in doing so he must pay the whole amount of the mortgage debt: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1063; Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 33; Pearce v. Morris, L. R. 5 Ch. App. Cas. 227; Eldridge v. Wright, 55 Cal. 531; Seymour v. Davis, 35 Conn. 264; Lyon v. Robbins, 45 Conn. 513; Eice. man v. Finch, 79 Ind. 511; Smith v. Kelley, 27 Me. 237; 46 Am. Dec. 595; Wood v. Goodwin, 49 Me. 260; 77 Am. Dec. 259; Taylor v. Porter, 7 Mass. 355; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146; Merritt v. Hosmer, 11 Gray, 276; 71 Ain. Dec. 713; Ex parte Willard, 5 Wend. 94; Boqut v. Coburn, 27 Barb. 230; Hube bard v. Ascutney M. D. Co., 20 Vt. 402; 50 Am. Dec. 41; McLaughlin v. Cur. lis, 27 Wis. 644.
The heirs or devisees of a deceased mortgagor are entitled to redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1062; Pym v. Boureman, 3 Swanst. 241; Lewis v. Nungle, 2 Ves. Sr. 431; Butts v. Broughton, 72 Ala. 294; Hunter v. Dennis, 112 III. 568; Zaegel v. Kuster, 51 Wis. 31; Chew v. Hyman, 10 Biss. 240.
A tenant for life, a tenant in tail, or a remainderman may redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1065; Wicks v. Scrivens, 1 Johns. & H. 215; Evans v. Jones, Kay, 29; Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60; 90 Am. Dec. 177; Lamson v. Drake, 105 Mass. 564.
A tenant for years may also redeem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1066; Keech v. Hall, 1 Doug. 21; Bacon v. Bovodoin, 22 Pick. 401; Daris v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60; 90 Am. Dec. 177; Hamilton v. Dobbs, 19 N. J. Eq. 227; Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 44. Morse, J., in delivering the opinion of the court in Averill v. Taylor, 8 N. Y. 51, said: “The important point of in. quiry in this case is, whether a tenant for years has a right to redeem the mortgage of his lessor, made before the lease under which the tenant claims. I understand the law to be as well settled as the reason and justice of the rule is clear, that any one who holds the actual relation of surety for the mortgage debt, charged upon land in which he has an interest, although his liability as such surety extends no further than to lose his interest in the land, has a right to redeem, for the protection of such interest."
A widow who has joined in the mortgage in release of her dower may re. deem: 2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1067; Butts v. Broughton, 72 Ala. 294; Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60; 90 Am. Dec. 177; Lamb v. Montague, 112 Mass. 352; Opdyke v. Bartles, 11 N. J. Eq. 133; McArthur v. Franklin, 16 Ohio St. 193; Trenholm v. ll'ilson, 13 S. C. 174; Gatewood v. Gatewood, 75 Va. 407; Posten v. Miller, 60 Wis. 494.
And where a mortgage given by a man and his wife is foreclosed, and she is not made a party, or is not served with process, she may, after a sale of the inortgaged premises, and during the lifetime of her husband, maintain, because of her inchoate right of dower, an action to redeem the mortgaged premises from the sale: Taggart v. Rogers, 49 Hun, 265; Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw. 524; Mills v. Van Voorhis, 20 N. Y. 412.
A surety of a debt secured by a junior mortgage upon payment of the debt is subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee, and may redeern from a prior mortgagee: Green v. Wynn, L. R. 4 Ch. App. Cas. 204; A verill v, Taylor, N. Y. 44.
A party cannot redeem from his own sale: McCullough v. Rose, 4 ml. App. 149; Hervey v. Krost, 116 Ind. 268; Todd v. Darey, 60 Iowa, 532; Lauriut v. Straiton, 6 Saw. 339.
Parties seeking to redeem must comply strictly with the provisions of the statute which confers upon them the right to redeem: Wilson v. Schneider, 124 Ill. 628; Eiceman v. Finch, 79 Ind. 511; Cummings v. Pottinger, 83 Ind. 294; Teabout v. Jaffray, 74 Iowa, 29; 7 Am. St. Rep. 466; Waller v. Harris, 2 Wend. 555; 32 Am. Dec. 590; Ex parte Bank of Monroe, 7 Hill, 177; 42 Am. Dec. 61; Hill v. Walker, 6 Cold. 424; 98 Am. Dec. 465; Ewing v, Cook, 85 Teun. 332; 4 Am. St. Rep. 765.
The equity of redemption is inseparably annexed to a mortgage, and can. not be disannexed therefrom even by the express stipulation of the parties: Stephens v. Sherrod, 6 Tex. 294; 55 Am. Dec. 776.
A restriction of the right of redemption to the mortgagor personally is in. consistent with the nature of a mortgage, and void: Johnston v. Gray, 16 Serg. & R. 361; 16 Am. Dec. 577.
RENIHAN V. WRIGHT.
(125 INDIANA, 536.] HUSBAND AND WIFE MAY MAINTAIN JOINT ACTION FOR BRRAOH OF Con.
TRACT OF BAILMENT WHEN. - Where a husband and wife enter into a contract of bailment with a person, and coinpensate him for such bail. ment, they are entitled to maintain a joint action against him for a breach of such contract. And while in such an action the matters charged in the complaint partake largely of the nature of a tort, yet if they are so intimately connected with the contract of bailment, also alleged in the complaint, as to be incapable of separation from it, this will constitute such a unity of interest in such husband and wife as will
give them the joint right to maintain the action. BODIES OF THE DEAD BELONG TO THE SURVIVING RELATIVES, in the order
of inheritance, like other property, and such relatives, and not the executor or adıninistrator, have the right to the custody and burial
thereof. PLEA OF SATISFACTION INSUFFICIENT WHEN. Where the complaint in
an action alleges that the plaintiffs employed the defendants to take care of and safely keep in a secure vault the body of their deceased daughter until they should be prepared to inter the same; that the de. fendants did not safely keep said remains, but carelessly and negligently took or allowed the same to be taken and buried, or otherwise disposed of, and wrongfully refused to inform the plaintiffs where said remains had been removed to, - an answer alleging that the defendants, by mistake, bad shipped the body to some point of interment not remembered by them at the time the plaintiffs demanded the body; that they so notified the plaintiffs, and promised them to immediately find and return the body; that the plaintiffs expressed themselves as satisfied with this ar. rangement; that shortly afterwards the defendants returned the body, which was taken and interred by the plaintiffs; and that the return of the corpse was taken and received by the plaintiffs in full and perfect satisfaction of all wrongs and injuries incident to the mistake made by the defendants — is bal, because it makes no averment that the plaintiffs agreed with the defendants that they would accept such return in satisfaction of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. The avernient at the close of the an-wer, that the return was so received and accepted,