Leavitt v. Bell

• Decision Date: 24 January 1900
• Docket Number: 11,063
• Citation: 81 N.W. 614,59 Neb. 595
• Parties: ISAAC S. LEAVITT v. ELLEN E. J. BELL ET AL. APPELLANTS, AND IRA B. COOK, ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLEE
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

81 N.W. 614

59 Neb. 595

ISAAC S. LEAVITT v. ELLEN E. J. BELL ET AL. APPELLANTS, AND IRA B. COOK, ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLEE

No. 11,063

Supreme Court of Nebraska

January 24, 1900

APPEAL from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before KEYSOR, J. Reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Howard B. Smith, for appellants.

William D. Beckett and J. W. Woodrough, contra.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, J.

When this cause was before us on a former appeal, the judgment was reversed, with instructions to the district court to set aside the original decree, and render a new one in conformity with the views expressed in the opinion. See Leavitt v Bell, 55 Neb. 57, 75 N.W. 524. It is now claimed that the judgment pronounced in obedience to the mandate is erroneous, because the amount paid by the mortgagee in satisfaction of the tax liens against the several lots should not have been added to the mortgage debt, and thus made a general charge against the entire property. This question was, on the first appeal, decided adversely to the contention of appellants. That decision is the law of the case, the rule being: "The settled doctrine of this court is that the determination of questions presented to this court in reviewing the proceeding in a cause in the district court becomes the law of the case for all subsequent proceedings and, ordinarily, will not be made the subject of re-examination." See Ripp v. Hale, 45 Neb. 567 64 N.W. 454; Coburn v. Watson, 48 Neb. 257, 67 N.W. 171; Fuller v. Cunningham, 48 Neb. 857, 67 N.W. 879; Omaha Life Ass'n v. Kettenbach, 55 Neb. 330, 75 N.W. 827; Mead v. Tzschuck, 57 Neb. 615, 78 N.W. 262; Hayden v. Frederickson, 59 Neb. 141, 80 N.W. 494; Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Johansen, 59 Neb. 349, 80 N.W. 1047.

Appellants also contend that the decree is erroneous, because it allows Cook interest upon the amount paid by him to Leavitt as accrued interest on the tax-liens. In this particular the court committed no error. The doctrine is established by abundant authority that the owner of a real estate mortgage has the right, in order to protect his security, to pay delinquent taxes upon the property covered by the mortgage. And it is equally well settled, we think that the entire amount paid to redeem the premises becomes, in equity, a part of the mortgage debt. The interest due upon delinquent taxes is as much a part of the tax-lien as is the sum charged in the first instance against the property. We have been able to discover neither reason nor authority for holding that a junior incumbrancer is not entitled to interest on the entire sum paid by him to...