Cheney v. Woodruff

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtMAXWELL
Citation20 Neb. 124,29 N.W. 275
Decision Date22 September 1886
PartiesCHENEY v. WOODRUFF.

20 Neb. 124
29 N.W. 275

CHENEY
v.
WOODRUFF.1

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

September 22, 1886.


Appeal from Johnson county.

Action to foreclose mortgage.

[29 N.W. 275]

B. F. Perkins and L. W. Colby, for appellant.


The benefit of the statute of limitations may be waived, and will be, unless pleaded. Taylor v. Courtnay, 15 Neb. 196;S. C. 16 N. W. Rep. 842;Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Miller, 16 Neb. 664; S. C. 21 N. W. Rep. 451. A mortgage foreclosure is not barred after the lapse of five years from the time cause of action accrued. Hale v. Christy, 8 Neb. 264; Stevenson v. Craig, 12 Neb. 464;S. C. 12 N. W. Rep. 1;Cheney v. Cooper, 14 Neb. 415;S. C. 16 N. W. Rep. 471;Herdman v. Marshall, 17 Neb. 259; S. C. 22 N. W. Rep. 690. A maker of a note who has declared to all the world that he has no defense or set-off to make against the note, and the mortgage to secure it, is estopped to set up usury as against a bona fide purchaser for value before maturity, who made the purchase relying on such declaration. Coleb. Col. Secur. § 138; Weyh v. Boylan, 85 N. Y. 394;Smyth v. Munroe, 84 N. Y. 354;Horn v. Cole, 51 N. H. 287;Ashton's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 153.

T. Appelget & Son, for appellees.


A mortgage of real estate is a mere chose in action after the notes it secures are barred by limitations, and is open to all defenses in favor of the original mortgagee. Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 N. Y. 88;Johnson v. Carpenter, 7 Minn. 176, (Gil. 120;) Comp. Laws Neb. 1885, p. 632, § 31. The purchaser of notes, before maturity, secured by mortgage, has no remedy, except upon the mortgage, after the notes are outlawed. Slocum v. Jacobus, 10 Iowa, 262;Olds v. Cummings, 31 Ill. 188;Terry v. Tuttle, 24 Mich. 206;Mott v. Clark, 9 Pa. St. 399; Pryor v. Wood, 31 Pa. St. 142;

[29 N.W. 276]

Baily v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 405;Sims v. Hammond, 33 Iowa, 368;Cumberland Coal Co. v. Parish, 42 Md. 598. An assignee of a mortgage takes it subject to equities attending its execution, and also to those existing at the time of the assignment. Crane v. Turner, 67 N. Y. 437;Hortsman v. Gerker, 49 Pa. St. 283; Twitchell v. McMurtrie, 77 Pa. St. 383.

MAXWELL, C. J.

This action was brought, in the district court of Johnson county, to foreclose a mortgage on real estate for a debt evidenced by four promissory notes alike in date, amount, parties, and effect, except the time of maturity; being due in two, three, four, and five years after date. The following is a copy of one of said notes:

+----------------------------------------+
                ¦“$35.¦TECUMSEH, NEB., December 14, 1872.¦
                +----------------------------------------+
                

Two years after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of P. D. Cheney thirty-five dollars, at bank of Russell & Holmes, without interest before maturity, with twelve per cent. per annum after maturity.

O. D. WOODRUFF.”

The notes are all indorsed by P. D. Cheney. An action to foreclose the mortgage was brought on the ninth day of December, 1884; the summons being issued on that day, and served on the fifteenth of that month. The defendant answered the petition, admitting the execution of the notes and mortgage, but alleging that the notes were given for usurious interest, which is admitted, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 10 Abril 1912
    ...142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70, 19 N. W. 751;Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422, 49 N. W. 237;Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, 29 N. W. 275; Read v. Edwards, 2 Nev. 262; Demerritt v. Batchelder, 28 N. H. 533;Hulburt v. Clark, 128 N. Y. 295, 28 N. E. 638, 14 L. R. A.......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 10 Abril 1912
    ...Mass. 433 (8 N.E. 346); Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70 (19 N.W. 751); Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422 (49 N.W. 237); Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124 (29 N.W. 275); Read v. Edwards, 2 Nev. 262; Demerritt v. Batchelder, 28 N.H. 533; Hulbert v. Clark, 128 N.Y. 295 (28 N.E. 638, 14 L. R. A. 59......
  • Morgan v. Farmington Coal & Coke Co, (No. 4974.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 9 Septiembre 1924
    ...the note does not deprive the holder of the mortgage of his right to enforce that?" The effect of the decision in Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, 29 N. W. 275, is contrary to the Dearman Case.[124 S.E. 598] It will not be necessary, to pass on the fifth assignment of error, which is t......
  • Et Ed. v. Coal, No. 4974.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1924
    ...on the note does not deprive the holder of the mortgage of his right to enforce that?'' The effect of the decision in Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, is contrary to the Dearman case. It will not be necessary to pass on the fifth assignment of [97 W.Va. 99] error, which is to the effect tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 10 Abril 1912
    ...142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70, 19 N. W. 751;Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422, 49 N. W. 237;Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, 29 N. W. 275; Read v. Edwards, 2 Nev. 262; Demerritt v. Batchelder, 28 N. H. 533;Hulburt v. Clark, 128 N. Y. 295, 28 N. E. 638, 14 L. R. A.......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 10 Abril 1912
    ...Mass. 433 (8 N.E. 346); Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70 (19 N.W. 751); Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422 (49 N.W. 237); Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124 (29 N.W. 275); Read v. Edwards, 2 Nev. 262; Demerritt v. Batchelder, 28 N.H. 533; Hulbert v. Clark, 128 N.Y. 295 (28 N.E. 638, 14 L. R. A. 59......
  • Morgan v. Farmington Coal & Coke Co, (No. 4974.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 9 Septiembre 1924
    ...the note does not deprive the holder of the mortgage of his right to enforce that?" The effect of the decision in Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, 29 N. W. 275, is contrary to the Dearman Case.[124 S.E. 598] It will not be necessary, to pass on the fifth assignment of error, which is t......
  • Et Ed. v. Coal, No. 4974.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1924
    ...on the note does not deprive the holder of the mortgage of his right to enforce that?'' The effect of the decision in Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, is contrary to the Dearman case. It will not be necessary to pass on the fifth assignment of [97 W.Va. 99] error, which is to the effect tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT