Russell v. Howard

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois

Russell v. Howard

21 F. Cas. 50, 2 McLean 489

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois

DecidedJune 15, 1841

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 F. Cas. 50 (Russell v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. Howard, 21 F. Cas. 50, 2 McLean 489 (circtdil 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT.

This is a bill to foreclose a mortgage executed by Howard to the complainant. The other defendants are judgment creditors, except the State Bank of Illinois, which is a subsequent mortgagee. The bank alone has answered, and states that it has a mortgage on a part of the premises, and prays that the other part may be first sold in satisfaction of the complainant’s mortgage. To this the complainant objects, on the ground that the statute regulating the sale of real estate, which has been adopted by this court, gives to the complainant a right to elect what property shall first be sold in satisfaction. It is a well settled principle in equity that a subsequent in-cumbrancer may discharge prior liens, and be substituted to all the rights arising under such liens; and where two persons have a lien on the same property to secure different debts, and one of them has, also, a lien upon other property, a court of chancery will direct such property first to be sold in satisfaction of the separate lien, before that which is common to both liens. Findlay’s Ex’rs v. Bank of U. S. [Case No. 4,791], and the authorities there cited; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. 480. In adopting the state rule, in regard to sales like this, the court did not change, or intend to change, this principle of equity. So far as the state practice can be followed, without counteracting any established rule of equity practice, it is adopted.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT.

This is a bill to foreclose a mortgage executed by Howard to the complainant. The other defendants are judgment creditors, except the State Bank of Illinois, which is a subsequent mortgagee. The bank alone has answered, and states that it has a mortgage on a part of the premises, and prays that the other part may be first sold in satisfaction of the complainant’s mortgage. To this the complainant objects, on the ground that the statute regulating the sale of real estate, which has been adopted by this court, gives to the complainant a right to elect what property shall first be sold in satisfaction. It is a well settled principle in equity that a subsequent in-cumbrancer may discharge prior liens, and be substituted to all the rights arising under such liens; and where two persons have a lien on the same property to secure different debts, and one of them has, also, a lien upon other property, a court of chancery will direct such property first to be sold in satisfaction of the separate lien, before that which is common to both liens. Findlay’s Ex’rs v. Bank of U. S. [Case No. 4,791], and the authorities there cited; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. 480. In adopting the state rule, in regard to sales like this, the court did not change, or intend to change, this principle of equity. So far as the state practice can be followed, without counteracting any established rule of equity practice, it is adopted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. Cas. 50, 2 McLean 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-howard-circtdil-1841.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack