McDougal v. Downey
McDougal v. Downey
Opinion of the Court
The Court below sustained a demurrer to the complaint “ for the reason that it appears by the complaint that a former recovery and judgment have been had on the same mortgage herein sued on, and it appearing that plaintiff has an adequate remedy for the alleged demand otherwise than by this suit.” While it is true that a decree had been entered upon this mortgage in a former action, it did not embrace the demand upon which the present action is founded. This latter demand has arisen only since the entry of the decree in the former action, and its amount has never been judicially ascertained, and no relief could be had under (lie provisions of section two hundred and forty-eight of the
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- McDOUGAL v. DOWNEY
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Enforcing Lien or Mortgage.—When a mortgage is given to secure money to fall due in several installments from year to year, a judgment enforcing the lien of the mortgage for one installment is not a bar to another action to enforce the lien of the mortgage for another installment subsequently falling due. Idem.—Section two hundred and forty-eight of the Practice Act, in relation to enforcing the lien of a mortgage, does not apply to a case where an installment secured by the mortgage falls due after it has been enforced for an installment due at an earlier date. Costs on Appeal.—When an appellant inserts unnecessary and irrelevant matter in a transcript, he cannot, if he succeeds on the appeal, compel the respondent to pay for it.