Home Inv. Co. v. Clarson
Home Inv. Co. v. Clarson
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from an order overruling the demurrer to the complaint, and the only question to be determined is, does the complaint state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief demanded? which is, in effect, that it be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagees in two certain mortgages. It is alleged in the complaint, in substance, that on or about the ist day of August, 1886, the defendant, George C. Clarson made and executed to the American Bank and Trust Company one promissory note for the sum of $500, payable, on July 1, 1891, and to. secure the payment of the same he executed a mortgage to the said trust company on 120
The appellant in support of the demurrer to the complaint, contends : “ (1) That respondent, when it purchased the premises at public auction, was an entire stranger to the whole matter; (2)
It is true that the plaintiff and respondent, at the time it appeared at the .sale and purchased said property, was an entire stranger, but it did what it had a perfect right to do — purchased the property at the sale — and relied upon the regularity of the foreclosure proceedings as a protection to it in its purchase; and it ought not to suffer loss by reason of defects in the foreclosure proceedings, of which it had no actual notice, as against a party holding the subsequent lien, and whose rights remain unchanged.
The contention of the appellant that there was no mistake of fact is not sustained by the pleadings. It is distinctly stated in the complaint that the plaintiff believed and acted upon the belief that the summons’had been duly served upon the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company. This is a mistake of fact, as it had not been served upon that company.
The further contention of the appellant that, for aught the complaint discloses, the plaintiff has a remedy at law, is clearly untenable. The complaint alleges that the defendant Clarson left the country, insolvent, and we are therefore unable to see upon what theory the plaintiff could maintain an action at law by which it could be protected. The contention that it is not alleged in the complaint that the defendant Clarson was the owner of said property it not tenable, as it is alleged that he executed the mortgages, and, as all the parties claim under these mortgages, it will be presumed, for the purpose of this decision, that he was the owner of the premises.
There'is some force in the contention that the plaintiff was guil
The court was therefore clearly right in overruling the demurrer, and the order overruling the same is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 3. Where a purchaser at a second mortgage sale, of which the third ' mortgagee had no notice, which fact was not Known to the purchaser, purchased a release of the first mortgage, and subsequently sued to be subrogated to the rights of the first and second mortgagees, that he was a stranger to the matters at the time of his purchase was no bar to relief. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint having alleged that he believed the third mortgagee had been duly served with summons, the complaint showed a mistake of fact on plaintiff’s part. 3. The complaint having alleged that the mortgagor had left the country, insolvent, the complaint was not demurrable as disclosing no lack of an adequate remedy at law. 4. The complaint was not insufficient for not alleging that the mortgag- or owned the property since, it being alleged that he executed the mortgages, and all the parties claiming under them, it would be presumed he was the owner. 5. Where one purchased at a second mortgage sale, of which the third mortgagee had no notice, which fact was unknown to the purchaser, who subsequently secured a release of the first mortgage, and 10 years after the purchase sued to be subrogated to the rights of the first and second mortgagees, the suit was not barred by laches, it not being shown that the third mortgagee had suffered by the delay. 6. It appearing that the third mortgagee’s position was the same as when his security was taken, and that no third party would be injured by the subrogation, plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.