Lawman v. Barnett
Decision Date | 08 January 1944 |
Citation | 177 S.W.2d 121,180 Tenn. 546 |
Parties | LAWMAN et al. v. BARNETT et al. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Rhea County; T. L. Stewart, Chancellor.
Suit to foreclose a mortgage by E. H. Lawman and others, receivers against Jackson H. Barnett and others. From a decree of foreclosure, appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decree and dismissed the bill, and the complainants bring certiorari.
Decree of Court of Appeals reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.
J. B. Milligan and C. G. Milligan, both of Chattanooga, and J. Roy Hickerson, of Winchester, for complainants.
Frazier & Roberts, of Chattanooga, for defendants.
This is a suit to foreclose a mortgage, in trust deed form, securing purchase money, evidenced by three serial notes, with acceleration provisions, two of which had fallen due more than ten years before this suit was brought, and as to which a plea of the statute of limitations was interposed. The question thus presented, and which we first consider, is one of first impression in this State, and not wholly free from difficulty. It involves construction of Code, Section 8590 subhead, ' Liens on realty barred after ten years,' and arises out of the following undisputed facts:
As of March 2nd, 1925, the First National Bank of Chattanooga sold and conveyed to Jackson Barnett and wife a tract of land in Rhea County known as 'Rhea Springs,' for a consideration of $9,000, to secure the payment of which sum the Barnetts executed a mortgage, in deed of trust form, to First Trust and Savings Bank, a corporate subsidiary of the First National Bank, which was the owner of all its stock. This instrument contained the following recital:
'But this conveyance is made in trust for the following purposes, and not otherwise: To secure the payment by the said parties of the first part to The First National Bank of Chattanooga, Tennessee, of the just and full sum of Nine Thousand ($9,000.00) Dollars for purchase money, evidenced by their three (3) several promissory notes of this date payable to the order of The First National Bank of Chattanooga, Tennessee, at its place of business in the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and described as follows: Said notes are dated at Chattanooga, Tennessee, March 2nd, 1925, in the principal sum of Three Thousand Dollars each, and mature at Two, Three, and Four Years after date, respectively.
For reasons not necessary for the decision of the question now under consideration to detail, indulgence was shown the Barnetts and no steps were taken to enforce payment of this indebtedness, until January 30th, 1939, when, no part thereof having been paid, the bill in the instant cause was filed seeking a court foreclosure of this mortgage, both the Bank and its subsidiary, the trustee, having become insolvent, and ceased to do business, their assets being in process of liquidation by receivers.
The defendants answered and plead the six-year statute of limitations against personal liability for any portion of the indebtedness, and, further, plead Code, Section 8590, as a bar to the enforcement of the lien of that portion of the mortgage debt represented by the two and three year notes above described, admitting lien liability for the third only of said notes, and offering to pay the same.
Upon the hearing the learned chancellor first overruled this plea, and decreed foreclosure for the entire debt; but upon a rehearing he reversed this holding and held that enforcement of the lien was barred as to that portion of the mortgage debt represented by the two notes which had matured more than ten years before the suit was brought.
The Court of Appeals, opinion by Portrum, J., did not pass on this question, raised by an assignment of complainant below, but reversed the chancellor and dismissed the bill, in so far as it sought a foreclosure of the mortgage as to any part of this purchase money debt, holding the decree 'void' for failure to effectually bring the trustee, in whom the legal title had been vested, before the court. This question we have disposed of in the concluding portion of this opinion. We granted certiorari and argument has been heard.
The Code Section above cited reads as follows:
' Liens on realty barred after ten years.--Liens on realty, equitable or retained in favor of vendor on the face of a deed, also liens of mortgages, deeds of trust, and assignments of realty executed to secure debts, shall be barred, and the liens discharged, unless suits to enforce the same be brought within ten years from the maturity of the debt.'
The learned chancellor was of opinion that this ten-year lien limitation began to run against each installment of the mortgage debt whenever a 'cause of action accrued' on such installment, or part. He quoted from 41 C.J., p. 871, the following: ' Under a statute conferring the right to foreclose when any installment of a debt secured has matured, limitation against foreclosure runs from the date of maturity of each installment so far as it is sought to enforce the lien of the mortgage therefor.'
The text cites only Nares v. Bell, 66 Neb. 606, 92 N.W. 571, which is the case chiefly relied on by diligent counsel for Barnett. We have italicized in the paragraph above quoted from Corpus Juris the distinguishing language which states the ground on which the opinion in that case is rested, and which the opinion holds, in application of a Nebraska statute, takes it out of the general rule which the opinion recognizes. This general rule is stated in Corpus Juris in a paragraph which immediately follows, for which numerous cases are cited, reading:
We quote from the opinion in Nares v. Bell:
A marginal note cites Parker v. Banks, 79 N.C. 480, which we hereinafter discuss.
The court then proceeds to note a Nebraska statute which confers the right upon mortgagees holding debts due in installments to foreclose as each installment matures and construes this statute as depriving the holder of the option accorded him under the foregoing general rule to defer foreclosure until maturity of all the installments, and in application of this statute relates the running of the limitation statute to the maturity of each installment. Says the Court:
The learned chancellor referred to our statute, Code, Section 8037, et seq., which makes provision for enforcement by foreclosure of liens upon the falling due of installment payments. He notes, however, a significant distinction, that this statute by its terms is limited to vendor's liens and does not include mortgages and trust deeds. Counsel for Barnett, however, say that it should be construed to include mortgages and trust deeds, and that so construed the instant case falls within the exception applied in Nares v. Bell.
We are not prepared to so extend our statute by construction....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis
...justice. Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614, 621 (Tenn.2002). They are shields, not swords, Lawman v. Barnett, 180 Tenn. 546, 565, 177 S.W.2d 121, 128 (1944), and they reflect “ ‘a societal choice that actions must be brought within a certain time period.’ ” Parrish v. Mar......
-
Payne v. First Cmty. Bank (In re Payne)
...encumbrance remains; indeed, the title is outstanding. It was to meet this situation that the act was passed.” Lawman v. Barnett, 180 Tenn. 546, 177 S.W.2d 121, 128 (1944). In the present case, by its express terms the Bank's deed of trust secured not only the 1997 Note, but also all future......
-
Parker v. Lambert
...8). This Quitclaim Deed was recorded on January 10, 1996. (Exhibit 8). "Equity looks thru form to substance." Lawman v. Barnett, 180 Tenn. 546, 177 S.W.2d 121, 130 (1944). ...
-
Eldridge v. Savage
...v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614, 621 (Tenn. 2002)). "They are shields, not swords," Redwing, 363 S.W.3d at 456 (quoting Lawman v. Barnett, 180 Tenn. 546, 565, 177 S.W.2d 121, 128 (1944)), and are based on the presumption that a person with the legal capacity to litigate will not delay bringing suit o......