Bryson v. James
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from an order appointing a-receiver of the rents, issues and profits of the mortgaged premises during the pendency of an action to foreclose the mortgage.
The motion was based upon the following covenant- to the mortgage:
‘ ‘And it is further expressly covenanted and agreed by and between the parties hereto, that if default shall be made in payment of the principal sum mentioned in the condition of the said bond, or if any part thereof, or of the interest which shall accrue thereon, or of any part thereof, or of any tax: or assessment, or of any part thereof, or of the interest thereon, or of any part thereof, at the respective times therein specified for the payment thereof, the party of the second part, her successors, legal representatives or assigns, shall have the right, forthwith, after any such default, to enter upon and take possession of the said mortgaged premises- and receive the rents, issues and profits thereof, and apply the same, after payment of all necessary charges and expenses, on account of this mortgage, and of the bond accompanying the same.”
And the said party of the second part, her successors, legal representatives or assigns, shall be at liberty immediately after any such default, upon a complaint filed, or any
By this covenant the mortgagor pledged the rents, issues and profits of the mortgaged premises.
It is well settled that the court may make a decree in foreclosure, when obtained, relate back to time of the commencement of the action, and where necessary for the security of the mortgage debt (even where no pledge of the rents etc , is constituted a security for the payment of the debt) appoint a receiver of the rents and profits accruing in the interval between the commencement of the action and final judgment.
It cannot, therefore, with any justice, be claimed that in cases where the parties have themselves agreed upon the time when the rents, issues and profits should become security for the debt, the court should treat as of no force and effect what is virtually a contract between the parties, unless a failure to treat it would be unconscionable.
As we stated in the case of MacKellar v. Rogers (52 Supr., 362), “The covenant means that the mortgagee shall have the benefit (of rents and profits) while the litigation is pending down to the only sufficient and competent mode of deciding the issues of the action.
The order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs.
Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.