Ives v. Commissioner of Insolvents

Ohio Supreme Court

Ives v. Commissioner of Insolvents

1 Wright 626, 1 Ohio Ch. 626

DecidedJune 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 626 (Ives v. Commissioner of Insolvents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ives v. Commissioner of Insolvents, 1 Wright 626, 1 Ohio Ch. 626 (Ohio 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOD, J.

The first question presented is, can an equitable interest in land be the subject of a mortgage ? The respondent contends it cannot — we think it can. The next question urged is, whether the sale by order of chancery basso changed the subject •as to destroy the lien of the mortgagee ? The assignee takes the property as the insolvent held it — he stands in the debtor’s shoes. If the sale had been made by the insolvent, the question would hardly have been made. We are then asked if there be any remedy except by application to the chancellor under the decree of sale for a distribution ? Perhaps the chancellor would admit the complainant’s application for a distribution in that suit, but, be that as may, the complainant was not a party nor privy to that suit, and cannot be bound by that decree. He now applies to us in a matter of trust to direct the disposition of the trust fund.

Decree for the complainant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOOD, J.

The first question presented is, can an equitable interest in land be the subject of a mortgage ? The respondent contends it cannot — we think it can. The next question urged is, whether the sale by order of chancery basso changed the subject •as to destroy the lien of the mortgagee ? The assignee takes the property as the insolvent held it — he stands in the debtor’s shoes. If the sale had been made by the insolvent, the question would hardly have been made. We are then asked if there be any remedy except by application to the chancellor under the decree of sale for a distribution ? Perhaps the chancellor would admit the complainant’s application for a distribution in that suit, but, be that as may, the complainant was not a party nor privy to that suit, and cannot be bound by that decree. He now applies to us in a matter of trust to direct the disposition of the trust fund.

Decree for the complainant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 626, 1 Ohio Ch. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ives-v-commissioner-of-insolvents-ohio-1834.