Metz v. Todd
| Decision Date | 06 June 1877 |
| Citation | 36 Mich. 473 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mary Metz and another v. Helen G. Todd and others |
Heard April 10, 1877
Appeal in Chancery from Calhoun Circuit.
Decree affirmed, with costs.
E. Baxter and J. C. Post, for complainants.
Severens, Boudeman & Turner, for defendants.
OPINION
This is a foreclosure suit. The mortgage was given by defendants Helen G. Todd and Alice M. Terry, to secure the payment of four promissory notes made by third persons, and which the mortgagors had delivered to complainants on a purchase of the land mortgaged. The bill avers that the four notes were delivered to the complainants "as security for the payment of the purchase price," and that the mortgage was taken at the same time to secure the payment of the notes. It is claimed by the defense that the notes were received in payment for the land, and that the purchasers were not to be looked to for payment except upon the mortgage and according to its conditions. The evidence satisfies us that this defense is well founded.
It is also claimed on the part of the defense that on the only note now remaining unpaid, and which was made by one Frink, the mortgagees, for a consideration paid to them, and without the knowledge of the mortgagors, extended the time of payment. The mortgagors then insist that, though not personally at any time liable as sureties, yet as owners of the mortgaged land they occupied that position, and consequently the extension granted to the principal debtor, without their consent, discharged the land from the mortgage lien. That the claim is well founded if the proof establishes the extension, we think is undoubted.-- Neimcewicz v. Gahn, 3 Paige 614; and Gahn v. Neimcewicz, 11 Wend. 312; Christner v. Brown, 16 Iowa 130. We also find the facts to be in accordance with the theory of the defense.
The decree must be affirmed, with costs.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyworth v. Wiechers
...the contract to the assignees of the vendee therein. Reliance was placed upon Smith v. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42, 24 Am. Rep. 529, and Metz v. Todd, 36 Mich. 473. ‘As between the assignor and the assignee, the latter becomes the principal debtor and the former a surety.’ Barnard v. Huff, 252 Mic......
-
Higgins v. Deering Harvester Company
...v. Franklin Bank, 173 Mo. 179; White v. Smith, 174 Mo. 203; Smith v. Townsend, 25 N.Y. 482; Chisner v. Brayon, 16 Iowa 130; Metts v. Todd, 36 Mich. 473; 1 Jones Mortgages, sec. 942; Gahn v. Nieceweiz, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 324; Murray v. Marshall, 94 N.Y. 611; Spencer v. Spencer, 95 N.Y. 611. (6......
-
Nelson v. Brown
...by the mortgagee without the consent of mortgagor discharges the latter, provided there was a consideration for such extension. Metz v. Todd, 36 Mich. 474; Orrick Dunham, 79 Mo. 174; 1 Story, Equity, sec. 499; 3 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., sec. 1205, and cases cited; Jumel v. Jumel, 7 Paige, 594; H......
-
Fanning v. Murphy
...437, 36 L. Ed. 118;Wayman v. Jones, 58 Mo. App. 313;Spencer v. Spencer, 95 N. Y. 353;George v. Andrews, 60 Md. 26, 45 Am. Rep. 706;Metz v. Todd, 36 Mich. 473;Bank v. Wood, 56 Mo. App. 214. The federal Supreme Court in the case cited, speaking of the doctrine which obtains here, that one who......