WOODWORTH
v.
BLAIR & OTHERS

U.S. | 1884-10-27
112 U.S. 8 Supreme Court of the United States (1884) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 28 L. Ed. 615 · 5 S. Ct. 6 · SCDB 1884-002 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1846
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In a foreclosure suit against a railroad corporation, the Supreme Court affirmed that a junior mortgagee need not be made a party to the foreclosure proceeding when the decree seeks only to foreclose the equity of redemption from a prior mortgage rather than the entire property. The Court held that the circuit court properly dismissed the appellant's intervening petition and ordered foreclosure of the railroad's property subject to her mortgage, as this procedure effectively protected all parties' rights while avoiding unnecessary delay in determining the validity of multiple liens on specific corporate assets.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Gray

Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts'in the foregoing language, and continued:

Assuming, as the appellant contends, that her conveyance-to ' Dobbins, and the mortgage back by him, should be considered in equity as if made-to and by .the railroad corporation, no' ground is shown for reversing the decree below.

The appellant’s mortgage covered only the tract of land specifically described therein, and did not affect the title of. the corporation in other lands and in so much of its róad as was not-laid over the land mortgaged to her. The case differs in this respect from the cases cited-by her counsel, in which a-mechanic’s lien given by statute for work done on part of a railroad' was held to extend to the whole road. Brooks v. Railway Company, 101 U. S. 443; Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U. S. 728.

As a general rule, a prior mortgagee is ,not a necessary party tó a bill to foreclose a junior mortgage, where the decree sought is only for a foreclosure of the equity of redemption from the prior mortgage, and not of the' entire property or estate. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage of the whole railroad, franchise and property of a railroad corporation, it would often produce great delay and embarrassment to undertake to determine the validity and extent of all prior liens and encumbrances on specific parts of the corporate property before entering á final decree.

The course pursued by the Circuit Court in the present case, dismissing the intervening petition of the appellant, without prejudice, and ordering a foreclosure by sale, subject to her mortgage, of the entire railroad and other property included in the railroad, mortgages, to foreclose which the principal suit had been brought, judiciously and effectively secured the rights of all parties.

The price obtained by the sale 01 the railroad and other property, subject to her mortgage, must have been less than if they had been sold free of that mortgage; and to order the amount of that mortgage to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale would pro tanto benefit the purchaser if the sale was carried out, or the railroad corporation in case of redemption, to the corresponding detriment of the holders of bond's secured by the railroad mortgages.

The railroad corporation, after having redeemed its property from the railroad mortgages, will hold it subject to. any valid lien of the appellant, just as it did before the proceedings for foreclosure were instituted.

Decree affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Hefner v. Nw. Life Ins. Co., 123 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1887)
    …econd mortgage and a bill to redeem from the first mortgage. Finley v. Bank of United States, 11 Wheat. 304; Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 29, 37; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U.S. 734; Miltenberger v. Logansport Railway, 106 U.S. 286, 307; Woodworth v. Blair, 112 U.S. 8; Haines v. Beach, 3 Johns. Ch. 459; Hudnit v. Smith, 1 C.E. Green, 550. In all the cases heretofore referred to, the adverse title was prior to the mortgage foreclosed. But in the case at bar, the tax title, though adverse to the mortgage title, wa…
  • Shepherd v. Pepper, 133 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1890)
    …f- the encumbrancers require the sale'. Finley v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheat. 301, 306; Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 29, 37, 38; Jerome v. McCarter, 91 U. S. 734, 735, 736, 740; Hill v. National Bank, 97 U. S. 450, 453, 454; Woodworth v. Blair, 112 U. S. 8; Hefner v. Northwestern Life Ins, Co., 124 U. S. 747, 754; Vanderkemp v. Shelton, 11 Paige, 28. This authority is' properly exercised in the case of deeds of trust, where all the encum-' branees are due and where the. plaintiff has a first lien on s…
  • Osage OIL & Ref. Co. v. Mulber OIL Co., 43 F.2d 306 (10th Cir. 1930)
    …not consent, the decree should be that he redeem, and then foreclose for the enforcement of his own lien, and that he had redeemed. 2 Jones, Mortg. §§ 1394-1396,1431, 1439; 1580; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734 [24 L. Ed. 136]; Woodworth v. Blair, 112 U. S. 8, 5 S. Ct. 6 [28 L. Ed. 615]; McKernan v. Neff, 43 Ind. 503; Spurgin v. Adamson, 62 Iowa, 661,18 N. W. 293. A judicial foreclosure sale is not void because one interested in the equity of redemption, as a junior mortgagee, was not a party. ‘The sale…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw