Greenfield v. United States Mortg. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1904
• Docket Number: 54.
• Citation: 133 F. 784
• Parties: GREENFIELD v. UNITED STATES MORTGAGE CO. OF SCOTLAND, Limited, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

133 F. 784

GREENFIELD v. UNITED STATES MORTGAGE CO. OF SCOTLAND, Limited, et al.

No. 54.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division.

December 20, 1904

Jones &amp Jeffries, for complainant.

T. E Hare, for defendants.

The complainant filed her bill in the chancery court of Jackson county, state of Arkansas, to remove as a cloud on her title to certain lands two deeds, under which the defendant mortgage company claims title to the same realty. The plaintiff who is in possession of the premises in controversy, claims to be the owner thereof, and charges that on April 23, 1901, she, being then a married woman, was by force and threats compelled by her husband to execute a mortgage, in the nature of a trust deed with powers of sale to the defendant Carlisle, as trustee, for the purpose of securing a loan made by the mortgage company to her husband she receiving no part of the consideration, nor was the loan for the benefit of her separate estate. She also charges that the loan was usurious, and, under the laws of the state of Arkansas, absolutely void. That on the 13th day of March, 1903, the defendant Carlisle, under the powers contained in the mortgage deed, caused said lands to be sold for a default in the payment of the debt secured by it, and at such sale the mortgage company became the purchaser of the lands. She further charges that before the expiration of a year, within which time she was, under the laws of the state of Arkansas, permitted to redeem the premises from the foreclosure sale, she offered to do so, and tendered to the mortgage company the sum of $1,192, the amount of the sale, with interest and costs, which was refused by it. The prayer of the bill is that the mortgage deed, as well as the deed executed by the trustee to the mortgage company under the foreclosure, he canceled as a cloud on her title; or, if the court finds that the mortgage was valid, that she be permitted to redeem the lands from the sale upon payment of the sum of $1,192, which would be full satisfaction of the mortgage debt, interest, and costs. In due time the defendants, by proper proceedings, removed the cause from the state court to this court, alleging in their petition for removal that the matters in controversy exceeded in value the sum of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

TRIEBER District Judge.

Whether, in an action to redeem from a mortgage, the jurisdiction of a national court is to be determined by the value of the land or the amount of the mortgage debt is immaterial, and need not be determined in this cause, as the main object of this bill is to cancel, not only the mortgage deed, but also the deed of the trustee, executed by him under the foreclosure proceedings to the mortgage company, which deed vests in the purchaser the entire fee to the estate. The prayer for relief, so far as it asks for a redemption, is only in the alternative in case the court holds that the mortgage and sale made thereunder are valid. Therefore the only question involved in this proceedings is whether, in an action to quiet title and remove a cloud on complainant's title, which cloud is caused by a mortgage for less than $2,000, but which mortgage has been foreclosed and a deed executed to the purchaser, the jurisdiction of the court is to be determined by the value of the land or the amount of the mortgage debt.

The allegation in the petition for removal that the value of the land exceeds $2,000 is not controverted. In fact, upon the argument, it was admitted that it was in excess of $2,000.

While at one time a bill of this kind could not be maintained unless the title of the complainant had been established in several actions at law, the modern rule is that it is not necessary that the complainant party should have been subjected to several actions of ejectment and been successful in them. It is sufficient if he is the owner and in possession of the premises, and there is an outstanding claim of a particular estate, and which apparently and on its face has that effect, but which can be shown by extrinsic proof to be invalid. Holland v. Challen, 110 U.S. 15, 3 Sup.Ct. 495, 28 L.Ed. 52; 6 Am. & Eng.Enc.Law. 150. The action may, in fact, be appropriately termed an action to try title by equitable proceedings, for the party in possession, being unable to maintain an action of ejectment against one claiming the lands, but out of possession, is remediless at law to quiet his title, and can only obtain adequate relief in an equitable proceeding of this kind. The title to the premises can be as effectually settled in such an action as it could be in an action of ejectment, especially if the defendant by cross-bill asks for confirmation of his title, which is frequently done, and has been done in this instance. The party in possession need not await the pleasure of the adverse claimant, who is out of possession, to have his rights determined.

In this country dealings in real estate constitute a very material part of the commercial transactions; conveyances and mortgages of that class of property amount to millions of dollars daily throughout the Union. To facilitate them and...