Mortgages. Equity of Redemption.

Mortgagee's Right to Consolidate Mortgages

Source: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 7 (May, 1909), p. 540
Published by: The Harvard Law Review Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1325573
Accessed: 23-04-2024 08:41 +00:00

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Harvard Law Review Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Harvard Law Review

This content downloaded from 58.65.179.140 on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:41:50 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
540 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

85
85 Tenn.
Tenn.55.55.
AndAnd
the the
rights
rights
of theof
holder
the of
holder
a common
of a law
common
lien sh
greater.
greater. Eichelberger
Eichelberger
v. Miller,
v. Miller,
20 Md.20
332.
Md.
Neither
332. legal
Neither
nor
title
titleisisnecessary
necessaryto an
toinsurable
an insurable
interest,
interest,
and the holder
and theof aholder
lien m
to
to the
theextent
extentof his
of his
claim.
claim.
Insurance
Insurance
Co. v. Stinson,
Co. v. 103
Stinson,
U. S. 25;
10
v.
v. Germania
Germania Fire
Fire
Insurance
Insurance
Co., 62
Co.,
N. Y.
6247.
N.Thus
Y. 47.
the Thus
plaintit
principal
principal case
case
might
might
havehave
protected
protected
himselfhimself
fully, and
fully,
there seems
and thli
to
to make
make any
any
implication
implication
in hisin
favor.
his favor.
See Mosser
Seev.Mosser
Donaldso
v
766
766(Pa.).
(Pa.).

INTERSTATE COMMERCE - CONTROL BY CONGRESS - ACTION BY THE

COURTS PENDING INVESTIGATION BY INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMIS-
SION.- The plaintiffs were shippers on the defendant railroad which filed n
of a new schedule of rates. The plaintiffs, claiming that the new rates
cause irreparable injury, sued in equity to prevent their establishment pe
a determination of their reasonableness by the Interstate Commerce Com
sion. Held, that the bill be dismissed. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. M
Grocery Co., 166 Fed. 206 (C. C. A., Fifth Circ., Jan. 5, 1909). See NO
p. 524.

MORTGAGES- EQUITY OF REDEMPTION - MORTGAGEE'S RIGHT TO CON-

SOLIDATE MORTGAGES. - The owner of certain lots of land mortgaged them to
the defendant. The equities of redemption he assigned to the plaintiff, who
later acquired the equity of redemption in another lot, also mortgaged to the
defendant, but not by the same mortgagor, and expressly excepted from the
provisions of the Conveyancing Act, I881. The plaintiff tendered the amount
due on this last mortgage, but the defendant claimed the right to consolidate all
the mortgages. Held, that the plaintiff may redeem this mortgage separately.
Sharp v. Rickards, 99 L. T. R. 916 (Eng., Ch., Nov. II, 1908).
It was formerly well established law in England that when a mortgagee ac-
quired several mortgages on various estates, all given by the same mortgagor,
he could consolidate his claims as against either the mortgagor or his assignee.
Vint v. Padget, 2 De G. & J. 61 I. This rule was based on the ground that he
who seeks equity must do equity, but its justice in practice was frequently ques-
tioned, and it was abolished by the Conveyancing Act, I88r, except where the
right was expressly reserved in one of the mortgage deeds. 44 & 45 VICT.
c. 41. The general rule in our courts has always been that a mortgagee can
only demand payment of the debt due and covered by the mortgage sought to
be redeemed. Cohn v. Hoffman, 56 Ark. 19. But the mortgagee has been
allowed to consolidate a claim arising out of the same transaction in which the
mortgage was given; so also a claim for money expended in protecting the
property or title. Burgett v. Osborne, 172 Ill. 227; Robinson v. Ryan, 25 N. Y.
320. The principal case recognizes that on equitable grounds the English rule
in so far as it still prevails should not be extended to a case where the mort-
gages were executed by different mortgagors.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS- OFFICERS AND AGENTS EFFECT OF RE-

ELECTION AFTER OUSTER. - The charter of New York City provided that t
president of a borough, an officer chosen by popular vote, might be removed f
cause by the governor, and that a vacancy should be filled by a majority of
aldermen from the borough. The defendant, having been so removed, w
immediately selected by the aldermen for the remainder of his original ter
Held, that he is not entitled to the office. People v. Ahearn, 40 N. Y. L.
2477 (N. Y., App. Div., March, I909).
For a discussion of the principles involved, see 20 HARV. L. REV. 316.

NEW TRIAL-GROUNDS FOR GRANTING NEW TRIAL- ERRONEOUS IN-

STRUCTION MERELY AS TO DAMAGES. -A statute prescribed "a n
as the remedy for prejudicial error committed during a trial, but ne
pressly authorized nor expressly prohibited retrial of part of the iss

This content downloaded from 58.65.179.140 on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:41:50 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms