Vincent v. Moore

17 N.W. 81, 51 Mich. 618, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 649
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 17 N.W. 81 (Vincent v. Moore) 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
Vincent v. Moore, 17 N.W. 81, 51 Mich. 618, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 649 (Mich. 1883).

Opinion

Cooley, J.

The bill in this case appears to be filed to-enforce the payment of a sum of money which complainants paid to redeem from a tax sale certain lands belonging to defendant, and upon which complainants, at the time of redemption, held a mortgage. The redemption, it is assumed, was made for the protection of the mortgage ; but complainants went on after wards'and foreclosed the mortgage under the power of sale, taking no notice of what they had paid for taxes and making no claim for the amount. The land was sold in the foreclosure proceedings, and bid in for the amount of the mortgage debt, and defendant redeemed from that sale. This suit was then instituted. We think there is no foundation for it. What complainants were compelled to pay for the protection of their mortgage did not constitute a separate and independent lien on the land; it could become a hen only in connection with and because of the mortgage, and could not exist independent of it. When therefore complainants took proceedings which resulted in a satisfaction of the mortgage, any lien which may have existed before for the taxes paid was necessarily discharged, whether the amount paid was claimed in those proceedings or not. All that complainants could claim by virtue of the mortgage they were bound to claim in those proceedings, and they could not at pleasure split up their demand and make the parts the subjects of separate suits-.

[620]*620The decree must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Stallings v. Erwin
419 P.2d 480 (Montana Supreme Court, 1966)
Hewey v. Richards
80 A.2d 541 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1951)
State-Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Pollard & Bagby Investment Corp.
42 S.E.2d 287 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1947)
Burke v. Guilford Mortgage Co.
161 S.W.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Hillsborough Investment Company v. City of Tampa
5 So. 2d 256 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Joseph
28 N.E.2d 330 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1940)
Citizens Savings Bank v. Guaranty Loan Co.
6 A.2d 688 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1939)
New York Life Insurance v. Erb
268 N.W. 754 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Business Women's Holding Co. v. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank
259 N.W. 812 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
Douglas Loan & Mortgage Co. v. Isenberg
275 Ill. App. 76 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Mortgage & Contract Co. v. First Mortgage Bond Co.
240 N.W. 39 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1932)
First National Bank v. Standard Accident Insurance
297 P. 864 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1931)
Wyoming Building & Loan Ass'n v. Mills Const. Co.
269 P. 45 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1928)
A. Krolik & Co. v. Ossowski
180 N.W. 499 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1920)
Wood v. Button
172 N.W. 422 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
Jensen v. Gamble
157 N.W. 440 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Sucker v. Cranmer
149 N.W. 16 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Stone v. Tilley
101 S.W. 201 (Texas Supreme Court, 1907)
People v. Hossler
97 N.W. 754 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 N.W. 81, 51 Mich. 618, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-v-moore-mich-1883.