Tennessee Valley Bank v. Sewell

ANDERSON, C. J. When a mortgagor conveys the mortgaged property, and his grantee assumes the payment of the mortgage as between the mortgagor and his grantee, the grantee becomes the principal debtor primarily liable for the debt, and the mortgagor becomes a surety with all the consequences flowing from the relationship. As between these two and the mortgagee, although he may treat them both as debtors, and may enforce the liability against either, still, after notice of the assumption, he is bound to recognize the condition of surety-ship and to respect the rights of the surety in all of his subsequent dealings with them. When the mortgagor, having become a surety, pays off the mortgage, he is entitled to hold it by equitable assignment or subrogation for the purpose of reimbursement from the grantee. 3 Pomeroy, § 1206, and note on page 1409. This rule as enunciated by Mr. Pomeroy is not only supported by many authorities cited in his notes, but finds support in our own case of Hamilton v. Robinson, 67 So. 434, 190 Ala. 549, as well as previous decisions of this court. Therefore, when Se-well, the appellee, mortgaged the lot to the loan company, and subsequently sold ■ it .to Norton, who assumed the payment of the mortgage as part of the purchase money, but failed to pay same, and Sewell paid it, he became the equitable assignee, and was by the operation of equitable principles subrogated to the rights of the loan company. The fact that section 3602 of the Code of 1907 forbade the loan company from assigning its securities could at most apply to a contractual or conventional subrogation; and not to one that arose by the operation of law. Moreover, section 3602 must be considered in pari materia with section 5394 of the Code of 1907, and which provides: “A surety who has paid the debt of his principal is sul rogated, both at law and in equity, to all the rights of the creditor, and in a controversy with other creditors, ranks in dignity the same as the creditor whose claim is paid.” The decree of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. SOMERYILLE, THOMAS, and ROULDIN, XL, concur.