BRYAN
v.
BRASIUS

U.S. | 1896-04-13
No. 200
162 U.S. 415 Supreme Court of the United States (1896) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 40 L. Ed. 1022 · 16 S. Ct. 803 · 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2218 · SCDB 1895-192
Cited by 5 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

Bryan, a mortgagor, brought an ejectment action against Brasius to recover land after the mortgagee breached the mortgage conditions; Brasius held possession as an assignee of the mortgagee. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Brasius, holding that a mortgagor cannot recover land in ejectment against persons holding possession under a mortgagee, even without a formal foreclosure, because the mortgage and the mortgagee's rights pass to assignees in possession.

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

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Shieas,

Mr. Justice Shieas,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case differs from the case of Bryan v. Kales just decided, in the particular that the mortgagee, Kales, is not himself the defendant, but the defendants in possession are his alienees. The question thus presented is precisely the one that was ruled in-the case of Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. 519, where this court held that a mortgagor of land cannot recover in ejectment against the mortgagee in possession, after breach of the condition, or against persons holding possession under the mortgagee ; and also held that an irregular judicial sale made at the suit of a mortgagee, even though no bar to the. equity of redemption, passes to the purchaser at such sale all the rights of the mortgagee as such. Gilbert v. Cooley, Walker’s Chancery, 494, and Jackson v. Bowen and, Neff, 7 Cowen, 13.

So in Jackson v. Minkler, 10 Johnson, 479, it was held that the assignee of a mortgage, in possession of the premises, is protected by the mortgage, though no foreclosure of it was shown, against an action of ejectment by a mortgagor. The judgment of the court below, Bryan v. Brasius, 31 Pac. Rep. 519, was placed on this ground, and it is accordingly

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1914)
  • Romig v. Gillett, 187 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1902)
    …her day in court, and therefore her rights, which, so far as appears, are only the rights of redemption, have not been cut off. Harding, as the grantee of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, stands in the shoes of the mortgagee. Bryan v. Brasius, 162 U. S. 415. As shown by the opinion in that case and cases cited therein a mortgagee who enters into possession, not forcibly but peacefully and under the authority of a foreclosure proceeding, cannot be dispossessed by the mortgagor, or one claiming under him…
  • Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, 199 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1905)
    …cannot enlarge or control the words of the grant.” Titcomb v. Currier, 4 Cush. 591, 592. Still lessscan such a recital as this be taken to eliminate the only title which the grantor held. See further Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. 519; Bryan v. Brasius, 162 U. S. 415. Other purely technical attempts to upset the verdict, so far as they need remark, may be disposed of in a few words. For some unexplained reason the plaintiff, in four of its counts, after describing the land and identifying it by the above-mentio…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw