Woodworth v. Blair

Supreme Court

Woodworth v. Blair

112 U.S. 8, 5 S. Ct. 6, 28 L. Ed. 615, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1846

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 27, 1884

Docket9

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 112 U.S. 8 (Woodworth v. Blair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woodworth v. Blair, 112 U.S. 8, 5 S. Ct. 6, 28 L. Ed. 615, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1846 (1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gray

delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts'in the foregoing language, and continued:

Assuming, as the appellant contends, that her conveyance-to ' Dobbins, and the mortgage back by him, should be considered in equity as if made-to and by .the railroad corporation, no' ground is shown for reversing the decree below.

The appellant’s mortgage covered only the tract of land specifically described therein, and did not affect the title of. the corporation in other lands and in so much of its róad as was not- laid over the land mortgaged to her. The case differs in this respect from the cases cited- by her counsel, in which a-mechanic’s lien given by statute for work done on part of a railroad' was held to extend to the whole road. Brooks v. Railway Company, 101 U. S. 443; Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U. S. 728.

As a general rule, a prior mortgagee is ,not a necessary party tó a bill to foreclose a junior mortgage, where the decree sought is only for a foreclosure of the equity of redemption from the prior mortgage, and not of the' entire property or estate. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage of the whole railroad, franchise and property of a railroad corporation, it would often produce great delay and embarrassment to undertake to determine the validity and extent of all prior liens and encumbrances on specific parts of the corporate property before entering á final decree.

The course pursued by the Circuit Court in the present case, dismissing the intervening petition of the appellant, without prejudice, and ordering a foreclosure by sale, subject to her mortgage, of the entire railroad and other property included in the railroad, mortgages, to foreclose which the principal suit *12 had been brought, judiciously and effectively secured the rights ■of all parties.

The price obtained by the sale 01 the railroad and other property, subject to her mortgage, must have been less than if they had been sold free of that mortgage; and to order the amount of that mortgage to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale would pro tanto benefit the purchaser if the sale was carried out, or the railroad corporation in case of redemption, to the corresponding detriment of the holders of bond's secured by the railroad mortgages.

The railroad corporation, after having redeemed its property from the railroad mortgages, will hold it subject to. any valid lien of the appellant, just as it did before the proceedings for foreclosure were instituted.

Decree affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Gray

delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts'in the foregoing language, and continued:

Assuming, as the appellant contends, that her conveyance-to ' Dobbins, and the mortgage back by him, should be considered in equity as if made-to and by .the railroad corporation, no' ground is shown for reversing the decree below.

The appellant’s mortgage covered only the tract of land specifically described therein, and did not affect the title of. the corporation in other lands and in so much of its róad as was not- laid over the land mortgaged to her. The case differs in this respect from the cases cited- by her counsel, in which a-mechanic’s lien given by statute for work done on part of a railroad' was held to extend to the whole road. Brooks v. Railway Company, 101 U. S. 443; Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U. S. 728.

As a general rule, a prior mortgagee is ,not a necessary party tó a bill to foreclose a junior mortgage, where the decree sought is only for a foreclosure of the equity of redemption from the prior mortgage, and not of the' entire property or estate. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage of the whole railroad, franchise and property of a railroad corporation, it would often produce great delay and embarrassment to undertake to determine the validity and extent of all prior liens and encumbrances on specific parts of the corporate property before entering á final decree.

The course pursued by the Circuit Court in the present case, dismissing the intervening petition of the appellant, without prejudice, and ordering a foreclosure by sale, subject to her mortgage, of the entire railroad and other property included in the railroad, mortgages, to foreclose which the principal suit *12 had been brought, judiciously and effectively secured the rights ■of all parties.

The price obtained by the sale 01 the railroad and other property, subject to her mortgage, must have been less than if they had been sold free of that mortgage; and to order the amount of that mortgage to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale would pro tanto benefit the purchaser if the sale was carried out, or the railroad corporation in case of redemption, to the corresponding detriment of the holders of bond's secured by the railroad mortgages.

The railroad corporation, after having redeemed its property from the railroad mortgages, will hold it subject to. any valid lien of the appellant, just as it did before the proceedings for foreclosure were instituted.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 U.S. 8, 5 S. Ct. 6, 28 L. Ed. 615, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodworth-v-blair-scotus-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack