Plant v. Shryock
Plant v. Shryock
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The sale of the land was after the valid renewal and extension of the mortgage debt which bound it, aud the purchasers took it subject to the incumbrance, which, being enforceable against Mrs. Phipps and husband, may be enforced against their vendees. Benson v. Stewart, 30 Miss. 49; Green v. Supervisors, 58 Miss. 337.
The deed of trust was recorded and there was no entry of satisfaction on the record, and although at the date of the purchase of the land from Phipps the note appeared on its face to be barred by the statute of limitations, in fact it was not barred, having been kept alive by a new promise in writing as required by law, and it was incumbent on a purchaser from Phipps to pursue the inquiry suggested by the state of the record, and ascertain if, notwithstanding the apparent bar of the note, it was in truth still a valid subsisting debt.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. M. Plant v. Lee R. Shryock
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Mortgage. Statute of limitations. New promise. Purchaser. Notice. Where a mortgage debt has been renewed and extended by an .acknowledgment and new promise, avoiding the bar of the statute of limitations, and enforceable against the debtor, a subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property, with notice of the mortgage, but without notice of the acknowledgment and new promise, takes it subject to the incumbrance thus renewed and extended. 2. Same. Record notice. Apparent bar by limitation. Purchaser: Inquiry. And if such mortgage be recorded, and there be.no entry of satisfaction thereof, it is incumbent on a purchaser to ascertain whether the mortgage debt is still subsisting and valid at the time of his purchase, notwithstanding it may appear by the records to be barred by the statute of limitations.