Ayres v. Wattson
| Decision Date | 09 March 1868 |
| Citation | 57 Pa. 360 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ayres <I>versus</I> Wattson <I>et al.</I> |
Before STRONG, READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ. THOMPSON, C. J., at Nisi Prius
Appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia: In Equity.
F. Sheppard, for appellant.— The plaintiff was but surety, and was discharged by the renewals: 2 Pars. on Cont. 18; Castleman v. Holmes, 4 J. J. Marsh. 1; 2 Sm. L. Cas. 466-7 (42 Law Lib.). The doctrine of equitable estoppel is inapplicable: Cole v. Bolard, 10 Harris 435; 2 Sm. L. Cas. 462, 468 (42 Law Lib.); Pierce v. Andrews, 6 Cush. 4; Wooley v. Chamber, 24 Verm. 270; Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill. 439; Bitting's Appeal, 5 Harris 211; Carpenter v. Hillock, 12 Barb. 128; Taylor v. Zepp, 14 Miss. 482; Alexander v. Walter, 8 Gill. 239; Morton v. Hodgton, 22 Me. 137; Otis v. Sill, 5 Barb. 102; Ryers v. Farwell, 9 Id. 615; Cartwright v. Gardner, 5 Cush. 273; Powel v. Hine, 21 Cowen 519; The Cambridge Institution v. Littlefield, 6 Id. 216; Watkins v. Peck, 13 N. H. 360; Pounds v. Richards, 21 Ala. 244; Carter v. Darby, 15 Id. 696; Hemley v. Hemley, Id. 91; Freeman v. Cook, 2 Exch. 653.
R. McMurtrie, for appellee, cited Martin v. Ives, 17 S. & R. 364; Goodman v. Losey, 3 W. & S. 528; Calhoun v. Dunning, 4 Dall. 120; Chambers v. Lapsley, 7 Barr 24; Carman v. Noble, 9 Id. 368; Hocker v. Jamieson, 2 W. & S. 441.
The opinion of the court was delivered, March 9th 1868, by SHARSWOOD, J.
The mortgage by the appellant to the defendant, Thomas B. Wattson, was "for the better securing the payment" of two promissory notes, drawn by George R. Ayres to his own order, to the holders thereof who were the firm of Thomas Wattson & Sons, of which the mortgagee was a member. The condition of the mortgage was, that if the said George R. Ayres should pay the said notes "on the days they respectively mature and become due or payable," the mortgage and the estate thereby granted should cease and determine. The answer admits that when the notes fell due, George R. Ayres requested a renewal thereof, which was acceded to, and the old notes delivered up and renewal-notes taken, and these again from time to time renewed, until the defendants became the holders of one note for $2800, dated January 10th 1861, payable in four months, being the aggregate of the sums for which the two original notes were given. It is plain that the mortgage, in law as well as in equity, was not a security for the renewal-notes. But it is alleged that the appellant is equitably estopped from setting up the claim that the mortgage is satisfied. It appears that George R. Ayres had given also to the defendants a mortgage on the bark Florida, of which they took possession, and that the appellant, who had obtained a judgment against George R. Ayres, levied on the said bark. Thereupon the defendants instituted an action of replevin against the sheriff of King's county, New York; and on the trial of that action, the appellant being present in court, and we may assume, for the purposes of this case, the real party defending the action in the name of the sheriff, called George R. Ayres as a witness, who stated in the course of his examination that Thomas Wattson & Sons held a mortgage on a ground-rent as collateral for the note of $2800. This is relied on as an estoppel sufficient to preclude the appellant from now asserting that the mortgage was satisfied when the original notes, to secure which it was given, were delivered up and new notes taken in their places. But it is difficult to see how such a ground can be maintained. An estoppel in equity arises from some act or declaration of one party by which an injury to the other party has been caused or at least attempted: Gilkeson v. Snyder, 8 W. & S. 200; Cook v. Grant, 16 S. & R. 198; Commonwealth v. Moltz, 10 Barr 527; Bitting & Waterman's Appeal, 5 Harris 211. If the fact that the defendants held another existing security for the debt of $2800 had been a defence to the action of replevin, and had been set up as such by the appellant, whether a recovery was secured by that means or not, there would be some show of reason and authority for it. It is very plain, however, that it did not affect in the least the validity of the defendant's mortgage on the bark Florida, how many, or what other independent collateral securities for the debt secured by that mortgage they may have held at the same time. A creditor may hold an unlimited number...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jourdan v. Dean
...now demand anything: Patterson v. Lytle, 11 Pa. 53; Musser v. Oliver, 21 Pa. 362; Troxell v. Lehigh C.I. Co., 42 Pa. 513; Ayres v. Wattson, 57 Pa. 360; 2 Herman on Estoppel, 1087; Dorrance v. Scott, 3 Wh. 313; Mitchell on Conveyancing, 478; 1 Devlin on Deeds, 67; Leggate v. Clark, 111 Mass.......
-
In re McCahan's Estate
...creditor holding several separate items as security for his claim may look for satisfaction to any one of the several securities: Ayres v. Wattson, 57 Pa. 360; Integrity Title Co. v. Rau, 153 Pa. 488. Once the creditor has paid its claim, regardless of the security which it realized upon fo......
-
Sensinger v. Boyer
...his silence has induced action by the other party that would lead to loss except for the estoppel: Musser v. Oliver, 21 Pa. 362; Ayres v. Watson, 57 Pa. 360; Reed v. 62 Pa. 308. It remains to apply this rule to the facts of this case. The case was tried without the aid of a jury and the fac......
-
Corcoran v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York
... ... of a discount of a renewal note and the original note is ... surrendered, it is payment of the original note: Ayres v ... Wattson, 57 Pa. 360; Moorehead v. Duncan, 82 Pa. 488 ... When ... all the facts are admitted or established, the defendant has ... ...