Miller v. McLaughlin

Michigan Supreme Court

Miller v. McLaughlin

93 N.W. 435, 132 Mich. 234, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 798

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1903

DocketDocket No. 29

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 N.W. 435 (Miller v. McLaughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. McLaughlin, 93 N.W. 435, 132 Mich. 234, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 798 (Mich. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). One and the same debt is secured by the original mortgage and all the subsequent agreements and deeds set up in the bill of complaint. They are interwoven with each other, and the last agreement made recited them all, and preserves them all in force. All these agreements relate to, and all parties are interested in, the same subject-matter, — some as guarantors, some as having given additional security, and some as subsequent mortgagees or grantees. Besides, Hubbard and Dingwall, by their agreement of July 25th with Beecher and Trowbridge, were personally liable for the debt under their guaranty, and in it had provided for a foreclosure of the mortgage deed given by them to Beecher. We think the case is ruled by Torrent v. Hamilton, 95 Mich. 162 (54 N. W. 634), and authorities there cited, and Michigan State Bank v. Trowbridge, 92 Mich. 217 (52 N. W. 632). It is also clearly within the statute (1 Comp. Laws, § 519), which is quoted in full in Michigan State Bank v. Trowbridge, 92 Mich. 222 (52 N. W. 633). The case of Hart v. McKeen, Walk. Ch. 417, has no application. In that case there were three distinct debts, three distinct mortgages, and three distinct mortgagees. So, for the same reason, Eastern Building & Loan Ass’n v. Denton, 13 C. C. A. 44, 65 Fed. 569, does not apply. There two mortgages were given to the same person to secure different loans on separate lots. Subsequently the mortgagor deeded the two lots to different persons.

The decree is affirmed, with costs,, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). One and the same debt is secured by the original mortgage and all the subsequent agreements and deeds set up in the bill of complaint. They are interwoven with each other, and the last agreement made recited them all, and preserves them all in force. All these agreements relate to, and all parties are interested in, the same subject-matter, — some as guarantors, some as having given additional security, and some as subsequent mortgagees or grantees. Besides, Hubbard and Dingwall, by their agreement of July 25th with Beecher and Trowbridge, were personally liable for the debt under their guaranty, and in it had provided for a foreclosure of the mortgage deed given by them to Beecher. We think the case is ruled by Torrent v. Hamilton, 95 Mich. 162 (54 N. W. 634), and authorities there cited, and Michigan State Bank v. Trowbridge, 92 Mich. 217 (52 N. W. 632). It is also clearly within the statute (1 Comp. Laws, § 519), which is quoted in full in Michigan State Bank v. Trowbridge, 92 Mich. 222 (52 N. W. 633). The case of Hart v. McKeen, Walk. Ch. 417, has no application. In that case there were three distinct debts, three distinct mortgages, and three distinct mortgagees. So, for the same reason, Eastern Building & Loan Ass’n v. Denton, 13 C. C. A. 44, 65 Fed. 569, does not apply. There two mortgages were given to the same person to secure different loans on separate lots. Subsequently the mortgagor deeded the two lots to different persons.

The decree is affirmed, with costs,, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 N.W. 435, 132 Mich. 234, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-mclaughlin-mich-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack