Keller v. Ashford

133 U.S. 610, 10 S. Ct. 494, 33 L. Ed. 667, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1937

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: March 3, 1890
• Docket: 3
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gray,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

, The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must be denied. This appeal ivas claimed and allowed February 16,1885.' At that time, the act of February 25, 1879, c. 99, was iii force, which provided that “ the final judgment or decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in any case where the matter in dispute, exclusive.of costs, exceeds the value of twenty-five hundred dollars, may be reexamined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of error or appeal.” 20 Stat. 321. The case is not affected by the act of March 3, 1885, c. 355, § 1, further limiting the appellate jurisdiction of this court, because that' act only provides that “ no appeal or writ of error shall hereafter be allowed ” from any such judgment or decree, unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars. 23 Stat. 443. The change of phraseology, referring to the time when the appeal or writ of error is allowed, instead of 4o the time when it is entertained by this court, was evidently intended to prevent cutting off appeals taken and allowed before the passage of the act, as had been held to be the effect of the language used in thé act of 1879. Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398. In a suit founded upon a contract, the sum in dispute at the time of the judgment or decree appealed from, including.<any ipteres^ then accrued, is the test of appellate jurisdiction!] Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32, 52; The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank, 118 U. S. 608; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617. By the express terms of the promissory note sued on. in this case, it bore interest at the rate of eight per cent yearly from its date until paid. Computing interest accordingly, the sum in dispute was much more than $2500 at the' time of the decree in general term, which was the decree from which this appeal was taken. In Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112, cited for the appellee, as in District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227, the judgment in special term was for damages in ah action sounding in tort, which bore no interest, either by the general-law, or by the judgment of affirmance in general term.

Nor can the objection of the defendant, that the original deed from Thompson to Ashford was not produced, or its execution proved, be sustained. The deed is admitted to have beeh duly recorded. There is no presumption that it was in' the possession of the- plaintiff, who was hot a party to it; but it 'is to be presumed to have been in the possession, either' of Ashford, the grantee named in the deed, or of Nelly, who procured the deed to be made, and to whom it was originally delivered. Both' of them having failed to produce it upon notice to do so, the recorder’s copy was competent and sufficient evidence of the contents of the deed, as between the parties to this suit. Rev. Stat. D. C. §§ 440, 467; Dick v. Balch, 8 Pet. 30.

• But upon the merits of the case we are unable to concur with the views expressed by the court below, in its opinion . reported in 3 Mackey, 455, either as to the effect of the testi- ’■ mony, or as to the rights of. the parties. The material'facts, as they appear to us upon full examination of the record, have 'been already stated. It remains to consider the law applicable* to. those facts.

The questions to be decided concern the extent, the obligation and the enforcement of the agreement created by the clause in the deed of conveyance from Thompson to Ashford of this and three other lots, “ subject, however, to certain' incumbran,ces now resting thereon, payment of which is assumed by said party of the sebond part.”

The five mortgages made by the grantor, namely, the plaintiff’s mortgage for $2000 and a prior mortgage for $1500 on lot 5, and a mortgage of $2000 on each of the three other lots, and some unpaid taxes which had been assessed against the grantor, were incumbrances, and were the only incumbrances existing upon the granted premises at the time of the execution of this conveyance. Rawle on Covenants (5th ed.) §.77. The clause in question, by the'words “certain incumbrances now resting thereon,” designates and comprehends all those mortgages and taxes, as clearly as if the words used had been “ the incumbrances,” or “ all incumbrances,” or had particularly described each mortgage and each tax. We give no weight to Thompson’s testimony as to Kelly’s previous conversation with him to the same effect, because that conversation is not shown to have been authorized by or communicated to Ash-ford, and cannot affect the legal construction of the deed as against him.

It was argued that, because the deed contains a covenant of special warranty against all persons claiming under' the grantor, the words “ certain incumbrances ” cannot include the mortgages made by the grantor, but must be limited to the . unpaid taxes which, it is said, would not come within the covenant of special warranty. But the answer to this argument is that any person claiming title by virtue of a lien created by taxes assessed against the grantor would claim under the grantor, equally with one claiming by a mortgage from' him; and incumbrances expressly assumed by the grantee are necessarily excluded from the covenants of the grantor.

Ashford is not shown to have had any knowledge of the conveyance at the time of its.execution; and a suggestion was made in argument, based upon some vague expressions in his •testimony, that the conveyance was intended to be made to him, by way of mortgage only, to secure him against loss o.n his previous loans to and endorsements for Kelly. But his subsequent acts are quite inconsistent with the theory that the conveyance did not vest the legal estate in him absolutely.

Within a month or two after the conveyance, having been told that the four lots had been conveyed to him and were subject to incumbrances, (although perhaps not then informed of the amount of the incumbrances,) he' entered into possession of the lots, and thenceforth collected the rents; and within nine months after the conveyance he had notice of the clause assuming payment of. incumbrances, and was requested to pay the plaintiff’s mortgage, ahd declined to pay it or to recognize any persónal liability for it; yet he afterwards sold and conveyed away two of the lots, and continued to keep possession and to collect rents of the other two. Having thus accepted the benefit of the conveyance, he cannot repudiate the burden imposed upon him by the .express agreement therein, and Would clearly have been liable to his grantor for any breach of that agreement. Blyer v. Monholland, 2 Sandf. Ch. 478; Coolidge v . Smith, 129 Mass. 554; Locke v. Homer, 131 Mass. 93; Muhlig v. Fiske, 131 Mass. 110.

The case therefore stands just as if Ashford had himself received a deed by whieh he in terms agreed to pay a inortgage made by the grantor. In such a case, according to the general, not to say uniform, current of American authority, as shown by the cases collected in the briefs of counsel, the mortgagee is entitled in some form to enforce the agreement, against the grantee; and much of the argument at the bar was devoted to the question whether his remedy should be at •law or in equity.

Upon the question whether the mortgagee could sue at Islw there is no occasion to examine the conflicting decisions in the courts of the several States, because it is clearly settled in this ' court that he could not. . ' -

•'This case cannot be distinguished from that of National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, and clearly falls within the general rule upon which the judgment in that case was founded.

It was there held that a contract by which the Grand Lodge, for a consideration moving from .another corporation,, agreed, with it to assume the payment of its bonds, would not support, an action against the Grand Lodge by a holder of such bonds; and Mr. Justice Strong, delivering judgment, after observing that the contract was made between and for the benefit of the two corporations, that the holders of the bonds were not parties to it, and that there was no privity between them and the Grand Lodge, said : “ We do not propose to enter at large-upon a consideration of the inquiry how far privity of contract between a. plaintiff and a defendant is necessary to the maintenance of an action of assumpsit. The subject has been'much debated, and the decisions are not all reconcilable.. No doubt, the general rule is, that such a privity must exist. .But there are confessedly many exceptions to it. One of them, and by far the most frequent one, is the case where, under a contract between two persons, assets have come to the promisor’s hands or under his control, which in equity belong to a third person. In such' a case it is held that the third person may sue in his' own name. But then the suit is founded rather on the implied undertaking the law raised from the possession of the assets, than on the express promise. ' Another exception is where the plaintiff is the beneficiary'solely interested in the promise,' as where one person contracts with another to pay money or deliver some valuable thing to a third. But where a debt already exists from one person to another, a promise by a third person to pay such debt being primarily for the benefit of the original debtor, and to relieve him from liability to pay it, (there being no novation,) he has a right of action against the promisor for his own indemnity; and if the original creditor can also sue. the promisor would be liable to two-separate actions, and therefore the rule is that the original creditor cannot sue. His case is not an exception from the general rule that privity of contract is required;” 98 U. S. 124. See also Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194.

In the earlier case of Hendrick v. Lindsay, 93 U. S; 143, cited by the defendant, a request, accompanied by a- promise of indemnity, to one person, to .sign an appeal bond, was conscrued to include another person who signed it .as surety, and therefore to- support -a joint action by the principal and the surety, both of whom had signed the bond relying'upon the promise, so that the only consideration for the promise moved from them. ' ‘

In the case at bar, the promise of Ashford was to Thompson and not to the mortgagees, and there was no privity of con- ' tract between them and Ashford. The consideration of the promise moved from Thompson alone. The only object of the promise was to benefit him, and not to benefit the mortgagees or other incumbrancers ; and they did not know of or assent to the promise at the time it was made, nor afterwards do or omit any act on the faith of it. It is clear, therefore, that Thompson only could maintain an' action at law upon that ■promise.

In equity, as at law, the contract of the purchaser to pay the mortgage, being made with the mortgagor and for his benefit only, creates no direct obligation of the purchaser to the mortgagee. Parsons v. Freeman, 2 P. Wms. 664, note; S. C. Ambler, 115; Oxford v. Rodney, 14 Ves. 417, 424; In re Empress Engineering Co., 16 Ch. D. 125;. Gamdy v. Gandy, 30 Ch. D. 57, 67.

But it has been held by many state courts of high < ithoritv, in accordance with the suggestion of Lord Hardwicke in Parsons v. Freeman, Ambler, 116, that in a court of equity the mortgagee may avail himself of the right of the mortgagor against the purchaser.

This result has been attained by a development and application of the ancient and familiar doctrine in equity that a creditor shall have the benefit of any obligation or security given by the principal to the surety for the payment of the debt. Maure v. Harrison, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 93, pl. 5; Bac. Ab. Surety, D. 4; Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 12, 22; Phillips v. Thompson, 2 Johns. Ch. 418; Curtis v. Tyler, 9 Paige, 432, 435; New Bedford Institution for Savings v. Fairhaven Bank, 9 Allen, 175; Hampton v. Phipps, 108 U. S. 260, 263.

In Hampton v. Phipps, just cited, this court declared the doctrine to be well settled^ and applicable “ equally between Sureties, so that securities placed by the principal in the hands of one, -to operate as an indemnity by payment of the debt, shall enure to the benefit of all;” and declined to apply the doctrine to the cáse before it, becáuse the mortgage in question was given, by one surety to another merely to indemnify him against being compelled to pay a greater share of the debt than the sureties had agreed between themselves that he should bear, and he had not been compelled to pay a greate" share.

The doctrine of the right of a creditor to the benefit of all securities given by the principal to the surety for the payment of the debt does not rest upon any liability of- the principal to the creditor, or upon any peculiar relation of the surety towards” the creditor; but upon the ground that the surety, being the creditor’s debtor, and in fact occupying the relation of surety to another person, has received from that person an obligation or security for the payment of the debt, which a court of equity will therefore compel to be applied to that purpose at the suit of the creditor. Where -the person ultimately held liable is himself a debtor to the creditor, the relief awarded has no reference to that fact, but is grounded wholly on the right of the creditor to avail himself of the right of the surety against- the principal. If the. person, who is admitted to be the creditor’s debtor stands at the time of receiving the security, in the relation of surety to the person from whom he receives it, it is quite immaterial whether that person is or ever' has been a debtor of the principal creditor, or whether the relation of suretyship or the indemnity to the surety existed, or was known to the creditor, when the debt was contracted-In short, if one person agrees with another to be primarily liable fo? a debt due from that other to a third person, so that as between the parties to the agreement the first is the principal and the second the surety, the creditor of such surety is entitled, in equity, to be substituted in his place for the purpose of compelling such principal to pay the debt.

It is in accordance with the doctrine, thus understood, that the Court of Chancery of New York, the Court of Chancery and the Court of Errors of New Jersey, and th¿ Supreme Court of Michigan have held a mortgagee to be entitled to avail himself of an agreement in a deed of conveyance from the mortgagor by which the grantee promises to pay the mortgage. Halsey v. Reed, 9 Paige, 446, 452; King v. Whitely, 10 Paige, 465; Blyer v. Monholland, 2 Sandf. Ch. 478; Klapw orth v. Dressler, 2 Beasley, 62; Hoy v: Bramhall, 4 C. E. Green, 74, 563; Crowell v. Currier, 12 C. E. Green, 152; S. C. on appeal, nom. Crowell v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 12 C. E. Green, 650; Arnaud v. Grigg, 2 Stew. Eq. 482; Youngs v. Trustees of Public Schools, 4 Stew. Eq. 290; Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Michigan, 354, 360; Miller v. Thompson, 34 Michigan, 10; Higman v. Stewart, 38 Michigan, 513, 523; Hicks v. McGarry, 38 Michigan, 667; Booth v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 43 Michigan, 299. See also Pardee v. Treat , 82 N. Y. 385, 387; Coffin v. Adams, 131 Mass. 133, 137; Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 California, 354; George v. Andrews, 60 Maryland, 26; Osborne v. Cabell, 77 Virginia, 462.

The grounds and limits of the doctrine, as applied to such a case, have been well stated by Mr.. Justice' Depue, delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court qf Errors of New Jersey, in Crowell v. St. Barnabas Hospital, as follows:

“ The right of a mortgagee to enforce-payment of the mortgage debt, either in whole or in part, against the grantee of the iqortgagor. does not rest upon ahy contract of the grantee with him, or' with the mortgagor for his benefit.”

The purchaser of lands subject to' mortgage, who assumes and agrees to pay the mortgage debt, becomes, - as between himself and his vendor; the principal debtor, and the liability -of- the vendor, as. between the parties, is that of surety. If the .vendor pays the mortgage debt, he may sue. the vendee at law for the moneys so paid.

“ In equity, a creditor may have the benefit of all collateral ■obligations for- the payment of the debt, which a person standing in .the situation of a surety for others holds for his indeny nity. It is ,in the application of this principle that decrees for deficiency in foreclosure suits have been made against subsequent purchasers, who have assumed the payment, of the mortgage debt, and thereby., become principal debtors as between themselves and their grantors.”.

“ Nut the right of the mortgagee to this-'remedy does not' result, from any fixed or vested right in him, arising either from the acceptance by the subsequent purchaser of the conveyance of the mortgaged premises, or- fromdhe obligation of the. grantee to pay the mortgage-debit as between-himself and his grantor. Though the assumption'of the me.tgage debt' by the subsequent purchaser is absolute and unqualified in the deed of conveyance,'it will be controlled by a collateral contract made between him and his grantor, which is not embodied in the deed. And it will not in any case be available to the mortgagee, unless the grantor was himself personally liable, for the payment of the mortgage debt.

■ “ Recovery of the deficiency after sale of the mortgaged premises, agaipst a subsequent purchaser, is adjudged in- a court of equity to a mortgagee not in virtue of any original equity residing in him. He is allowed, by a mere rule of procedure, to go directly as a creditor against the person ultimately .liable, in order to avoid circuity of action, and save the mortgagor, as the intermediate party, from being harassed for the payment of the debt, and -then driven to seek relief over against the person who has indemnified him, and upon whom the liability will ultimately fall. The equity oh which his relief depends is the right of the mortgagor against his vendee," to which he is permitted to succeed by substituting himself - in the place of the mortgagor.” 12 C. E. Green, 655, 656.

The decisions of this court, cited for the defendant,' are' not only quite consistent with this conclusion, but strongly tend to define the true position of a mortgagee, who- has in no way-acted on the faith of, or otherwise made himself a party to, the agreement of the mortgagor’s grantee to .pay the, mortgage ; holding, on the one hand, that such a mortgagee has no greater right than the mortgagor has against the grantee, and therefore cannot object to the striking out by a court of equity, or to the release by the mortgagor, of such an agreement when inserted in the deed by mistake; Elliott v. Sackett, 108 U. S. 132; Drury v. Hayden, 111 U. S. 223;, and, on-the other. hand, that such ' an agreement does not,, without the mortgagee’s assent, put the grantee and the mortgagor..in the relation of principal and surety towards the mortgagee, so that the Tatter, by giving time to the grantee, will discharge the mortgagor. Shepherd v. May, 115 U. S. 505, 511.

The present case is a strong one for the application' of the general doctrine. The land’ has been sold under a prior mort gage for a sum insufficient to pay that mortgage, leaving nothing to be applied towards the payment of the mortgage held by the plaintiff; and the plaintiff has exhausted her remedy against the mortgagor personally, by recovering judgment against him, execution upon which has been returned unsatisfied.

Although the mortgagor might properly have been made a party to this bill, yet as no objection was taken on that ground at the hearing, and the omission to make him a party cannot prejudice any interest of his, or any right of either party to this suit, it affords no ground for refusing relief. Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299; Whiting v. Bank of United States, 13 Pet. 6; Miller v. Thompson, 34 Michigan, 10.

Decree reversed, and case remanded with directions to enter a decree for the plaintiff.