Wales v. Gray

Michigan Supreme Court

Wales v. Gray

67 N.W. 334, 109 Mich. 346, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 856

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 19, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 N.W. 334 (Wales v. Gray) 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

Wales v. Gray, 67 N.W. 334, 109 Mich. 346, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 856 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Had the debtor, Toll, the right to direct the application of payments? We think not. The terms of the trust must control. If the debtor alone were concerned, it would make no difference upon which note the payment was applied. Charles P. [348]*348Toll parted with his right to dictate or control the application when he gave the security. He then agreed and directed the trustee “to devote the net proceeds to the payment of these two notes.” The trust deed stands upon the same footing as a mortgage, securing distinct payments. In the absence, therefore, of any direction as to the priority in the deed itself or declaration of trust, the proceeds must be applied pro rata. Jennings v. Moore, 83 Mich. 231, and authorities there cited.

The court below so held, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.

Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Had the debtor, Toll, the right to direct the application of payments? We think not. The terms of the trust must control. If the debtor alone were concerned, it would make no difference upon which note the payment was applied. Charles P. [348]*348Toll parted with his right to dictate or control the application when he gave the security. He then agreed and directed the trustee “to devote the net proceeds to the payment of these two notes.” The trust deed stands upon the same footing as a mortgage, securing distinct payments. In the absence, therefore, of any direction as to the priority in the deed itself or declaration of trust, the proceeds must be applied pro rata. Jennings v. Moore, 83 Mich. 231, and authorities there cited.

The court below so held, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.

Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 N.W. 334, 109 Mich. 346, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wales-v-gray-mich-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack