Mcgauley v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 19 October 1899 |
| Citation | 54 N.E. 842,174 Mass. 303 |
| Parties | McGAULEY v. SULLIVAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James
H. Bancroft, for appellant.
E.B. Glasgow, for appellee.
The only question here is whether the demandant had the right to redeem from a tax sale under St.1888, c. 390, § 57. The demandant was the devisee of one who at the time of the tax sale was a mortgagee of record. Four months after the sale the testator foreclosed his mortgage, and bought in the land at the foreclosure sale. He died without having had actual notice of the sale, and his devisee duly made the proper tender within two years after notice was brought home to her. The tenant's contention is that the right of redemption given by the statute is given to the testator as mortgagee, and came to an end when he ceased to be mortgagee by foreclosure of his mortgage. We are of opinion that the right of redemption given to the mortgagee by St.1888, c. 390, § 57, is an interest which by force of the statute vests in any person who is a mortgagee at the time of the tax sale, and passes to his assignee (Faxon v. Wallace, 98 Mass. 44), and is in no way dependent upon his continuing to be a mortgagee. The manifest purpose which the legislature had in giving the mortgagee the right of redemption was to prevent the security of his mortgage being wiped out by the failure of the mortgagor to pay the tax assessed to him. To remedy that evil, the mortgagee was given a reasonable opportunity to pay the tax after he had actual notice of the sale. It would be strange if a foreclosure of the mortgage terminated the right of redemption. It would be strange if it were held that realizing the security destroyed the security. The mortgagee's interest in the land covered by the mortgage would be wiped out by the tax sale, were it not for this act giving a right of redemption within two years after actual notice. The right of redemption would afford little relief, if it is held to be terminated by realizing the security of the mortgage. We are therefore of opinion that the right of redemption was not terminated by the foreclosure of the mortgage, but is an interest which passed to the testator by the deed conveying to him the land in pursuance of the foreclosure sale, and passed to the demandant as his devisee. Judgment for demandant affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Rotenberry
... ... being Ch. 286, Laws of 1932; Begole v. Bigelow et ... al., 213 F. 401; Millet v. Mullen (Me.), 49 A ... 871; McGauley v. Sullivan (Mass.), 54 N.E. 842, 174 ... Mass. 303; Jones v. Collins (Wis.), 65 A. L. R. 582; ... Begole v. Hazzard (Wis.), 51 N.W. 325; White v ... ...
-
Barry v. Lancy
... ... of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale and of his assignee to ... redeem is settled. McGauley v. Sullivan, 174 Mass ... 303, 54 N.E. 842. Lancy v. Bank, 177 Mass. 431, 433, ... 59 N.E. 115: Downey v. Lancy (Mass.) 59 N.E. 1015 ... In the ... ...
-
in re Lancy
...to redeem from a tax sale of a foreclosure and a subsequent transfer of the title so obtained was recently before us in McGauley v. Sullivan, 174 Mass. 303, 54 N.E. 842. was there held that the right given to a mortgagee by St. 1888, c. 390, § 57, cl. 4, is not dependent upon his continuing......
-
Downey v. Lancy
...mortgagee had was destroyed by the foreclosure, and did not pass to the plaintiff. See In re Lancy (Mass.) 59 N.E. 115; McGauley v. Sullivan, 174 Mass. 303, 54 N.E. 842; Stone v. Stone, 163 Mass. 474, 40 N.E. 897. evidence of the value of the property introduced by the plaintiff did the def......