Van Brunt v. Wakelee
This text of 11 Mich. 177 (Van Brunt v. Wakelee) 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.
Opinion
Without going into any extended discussion of the respective rights of a mortgagor and mortgagee of chattels after foreclosure, it is very clear from all the analogies of the law, and upon general principles, that a mortgagor has a right to redeem at any time before foreclosure. In the case of a mortgage of chattels this can only be done by a reduction of the property into possession, or by a sale pursuant to the power contained in the instrument. Neither was done in this case. The assertion of Wakelee that he refused the tender, and that he should take the entire wheat, so long as he did not take it, was no foreclosure j and the offer to pay the debt as alleged in the bill was in season, and discharged the mortgage.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 Mich. 177, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-brunt-v-wakelee-mich-1863.