Bromley v. Lathrop

• Decision Date: 28 May 1895
• Citation: 105 Mich. 492,63 N.W. 510
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BROMLEY v. LATHROP ET AL.

63 N.W. 510

105 Mich. 492

BROMLEY v. LATHROP ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 28, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Osceola county, in chancery; James B McMahon, Judge.

Suit by Thomas Bromley against Chauncey M. Lathrop and others to foreclose a certain mortgage. From a decree for defendants the complainant appeals. Reversed.

Fadewa & Walbridge and William J. Gray, for appellant.

Sweet Perkins & Judkins, for appellees.

MONTGOMERY J.

This bill is filed to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendant Lathrop and wife to Samuel S. Walker, and bearing date December 10, 1884. The mortgage was accompanied by a note for $300, being for the principal sum, and 10 interest coupons of $12 each, representing the semi-annual interest to mature on said note, all of which were payable at the office of said Walker, in St. Johns. Some two or three years after the execution of this mortgage, Walker formed a partnership with one White, the firm being known as Walker & White, and continued to carry on a business similar to the one which had been previously conducted by Walker, namely, loaning money on mortgages. In September, 1889, Walker & White joined with two others in organizing the Michigan Mortgage Company, Limited, which company succeeded to the rights of Walker & White, and conducted the same character of business in the office formerly occupied by Walker, and subsequently by Walker & White. The mortgage was assigned by Walker to complainant on the 27th of December, 1884, and the notes and interest coupons were delivered to complainant at that time. He has ever since held possession of the mortgage and note and, as the interest coupons matured, he presented them at the office at which they were payable, and received the money thereon from Walker, Walker & White, or the Michigan Mortgage Company. Walker, Walker & White, or the Michigan Mortgage Company wrote the defendant Lathrop, as these coupons matured, apprising him when they were payable, and stating that prompt payment would be required. The complainant, however, knew nothing of these communications. About the time the mortgage matured, the defendant agreed with the Michigan Mortgage Company for an extension of time on the mortgage for three years, and, for the purpose of securing the interest, executed interest coupons payable to the order of the Michigan Mortgage Company or bearer, and also executed coupons representing a bonus of $18, payable to the Michigan Mortgage Company or order. The Michigan Mortgage Company then called upon the complainant, and asked him if he was willing to extend the mortgage for three years, and, upon his replying that he was, turned over to him the interest coupons. He did not know the terms upon which the Michigan Mortgage Company had assumed to grant the extension to the defendant. The interest coupons were paid in the same manner as before, complainant, at their maturity, presenting them at the office of the Michigan Mortgage Company and receiving his money. When the mortgage matured, notice of this fact was sent by the Michigan Mortgage Company to defendant Lathrop, and the amount was raised by giving a new mortgage upon the property to defendant Judkins, and the money was remitted to the Michigan Mortgage Company. It never reached the complainant, but, while in the hands of the Michigan Mortgage Company, an assignment was made, and it is conceded on all hands that the...