Van Brunt v. Wakelee

11 Mich. 177, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 5
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided December 6, 1863·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Martin Ch. J.:

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.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Van Brunt v. Wakelee, 11 Mich. 177, 1863 Mich. LEXIS 5 (Mich. 1863).

11 Mich. 177 (Van Brunt v. Wakelee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cary v. Hewitt
26 Mich. 228 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1872)
Lucking v. Wesson
25 Mich. 443 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1872)
Flanders v. Chamberlain
24 Mich. 305 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1872)