Ten Eyck v. Casad & Rowley
| Decision Date | 05 April 1864 |
| Citation | 15 Iowa 524 |
| Parties | TEN EYCK v. CASAD AND ROWLEY |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lee District Court.
WINNE owned lot nine, block fifty-nine, in the city of Keokuk, and executed a mortgage thereon to Heimstreet. The mortgagor afterwards conveyed the lot to Rickey, who mortgaged the same to Rowley. Heimstreet foreclosed his mortgage, bought the property under the special execution, obtained a deed conveyed to Ten Eyck, and they have, since the sheriff's sale, enjoyed and received the rents and profits. To this proceeding of foreclosure Rowley was not a party. Ten Eyck filed the present bill against Rowley and others to quiet his title, and to require Rowley to forthwith redeem, by paying the amount for which the property sold, with ten per cent interest. Rowley filed his answer and cross-bill, claiming First, That he has ten years within which to redeem; Second That the rents and profits since the sheriff's sale, to the date of redemption, shall be deducted from the amount otherwise due Ten Eyck." A demurrer to the first clause was sustained, and to the second overruled. There was no stipulation in either mortgage entitling the mortgagees to the possession. Heimstreet's mortgage was made April 9 1857 ; Rowley's, June 23, 1857. Both parties appeal.
R. H. Gilmore for the plaintiff.
H. Scott Howell for the defendant.
Hon. GEORGE G. WRIGHT, Chief Justice, Hon. RALPH P. LOWE, Judge, Hon. JOHN F. DILLON, Hon. CHESTER C. COLE, Judge.
Counsel for defendant make no argument to sustain the sufficiency of the first clause of the answer. We are not aware of any principle of the common law which supports the position assumed ; nor has any provision of the statute been brought to our attention warranting the right to redeem for the time claimed. We conclude, from the summary manner in which it is disposed of by counsel, that it is not insisted upon with much confidence; and finding nothing to sustain the right thus claimed, we shall, in this respect, affirm the ruling of the Court below.
Under the second proposition it is, in effect, admitted, (and could not well be denied), that, by the equitable rules governing the rights of mortgagor and mortgagee, or at common law, the mortgagee was bound to account for the rents and profits. But it is insisted that this was because he held the legal title and took the possession without foreclosure proceedings in cour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adler-Goldman Commission Company v. Herren
... ... the mortgagor would, if in possession. Ten Eyck v ... Casad, 15 Iowa 524. It seems clear that the ... mortgagor, if in possession, would not be ... ...
-
Updike v. Merchants' Elevator Co.
... ... 602, 610; McCullough v. Rose, 4 Brad. 149, 152; ... Dailey v. Abbott, 40 Ark. 275, 282; Ten Eyck v ... Cased, 15 Iowa 524; 2 Jones Mortg. [2 Ed.] sec. 1118; 82 ... Ill. 393; Lehman v. Durr, 69 ... ...
-
Gray v. Nelson
...to the foreclosure proceedings, be required to account for the rents and profits during the time the possession was thus held. Ten Eyck v. Casad, 15 Iowa 524; v. West, 62 Iowa 80, 17 N.W. 179, and cases there cited. But that rule has no application in this case. If James Nelson had foreclos......
-
Nelson v. First National Bank of Jewell
...same parties. That this is the proper method to cut off the right of redemption of the defendant is fully recognized. See Ten Eyck v. Casad & Rowley, 15 Iowa 524; Shaw v. Heisey, 48 468; Evans v. Atkins, 75 Iowa 448, 39 N.W. 702. Of course, it goes without saying that a junior mortgagee who......