Johnson v. . Zink

Lott, Ch. C. The conveyance by the mortgagor of the mortgaged premises, “ subject to ” the mortgage in question, to Comstock conveyed to him the equity of redemption only, and consequently the mortgage was to be discharged and satisfied out of those premises, before any right or interest therein was acquired by the grantee, and as between those parties it is clearly equitable that such discharge and satisfaction should be made out of the said premises, and that the obligor and mortgagor should not, in exoneration thereof, personally be called1 upon to pay the same out of his individual property. The effect of the transaction was in equity to make the land the primary fund for the payment of the debt, and to place the plaintiff in the situation or relation of surety therefor only. This principle is clearly established. (See Jumel v. Jumel, 7 Paige, 591-594; Halsey v. Reed, 9 id., 446-453, etc.; Marsh v. Pike, 10 id., 595; Cherry v. Monroe, 2 Barb. Ch., 618; Ferris v. Crawford, 2 Denio, 595; Stebbins v. Hall, 29 Barb., 524, 529, 538.) This relation between the mortgagor and his grantee do not deprive the obligee from enforcing the bond against the obligor. He is entitled to his debt, and has a right to avail himself of all his securities. Equity, however, requires that the obligor, on the payment of the debt out of his own funds, should be subrogated to the rights of the obligee, so that he can reimburse himself by a recourse to the mortgaged premi *337 ses for that purpose. This cannot prejudice the creditor, and it is clearly equitable as between the debtor and the owner of the land. He clearly has no right or color of right, justice or equity to claim that he, notwithstanding the conveyance of the property subject to the mortgage, and thus entitling him only to its value over and above it, should in fact enjoy and hold it discharged of the encumbrance, without any contribution, toward its discharge and satisfaction, from the land. This equitable principle is fully recognized in most of the cases above cited. Indeed, it is so consistent with right and justice as to require no authorities to sustain it. Hpon the application of it to this case, the plaintiff was entitled to protection and indemnity out of the mortgaged premises for what he was called upon to pay for the land, and it was reasonable and proper to have an assignment of the bond and mortgage made to an appointee of his nomination, for his benefit) so as to save any legal technical question that might arise out of the transfer of the security to the debtor and obligor himself, or as to its operation to satisfy the debt. Whether it was made to the plaintiff himself, or another person to hold for him, was wholly immaterial to the defendant. The decision of the referee was, therefore, right on the merits; nor is there any ground for the reversal of the judgment on the admissibility of evidence. Assuming, as claimed by the appellant, that it was irrelevant and immaterial whether at the time of the execution of the deed from the plaintiff to Comstock there was an allowance made for the mortgage in question, the evidence could not prejudice the defendant. The presumption is, where premises are conveyed subject to a mortgage and the equity of redemption only is sold and conveyed, that the amount thereof is not paid to the vendor, but is deducted from the full value of the property. There was some evidence given, against the exception of the defendant, of conversations with him, and on one occasion with his wife also, tending to show that he had actual knowledge and notice of the existence of the mortgage in question as a lien at the time of the purchase by his wife and the exe *338 cution of the deed to her. The objection, made to its introduction, also was that it was immaterial and irrelevant. In the view I have taken of the case, I think it may be so considered and was entirely harmless. The plaintiff was entitled to the relief given him, irrespective of such knowledge and notice; but I may add, that the defendant cannot complain of the equities resulting from the transaction in favor of the plaintiff, when he was fully advised of the facts on which they were based. It is unnecessary to inquire whether an jpersonal obligation was assumed by either Comstock or Mrs. Zink to pay off the mortgage. That question is immaterial to the issue involved in this case, and its examination would be entirely irrelevant. It is proper to notice an objection raised by the appellant’s counsel on the ground of the omission of Mrs. Zink as a party; and it is sufficient to say, in reference to it, that no such question was raised by demurrer or by the answer, nor, so far as appears by the case, on the trial. It is, therefore, unavailable on the present appeal. It follows, from the views above expressed, that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur. Judgment affirmed.