Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1850 Excerpt:...charge on the property, for securing £100 and interest, and, afterwards, recovered the money due on the mortgage from the sureties. The suit was instituted by the sureties; and the question was, whether they were bound to pay off the £100 and interest in order to entitle themselves to have the mortgage assigned to them. Purvis Heathfield, for the plaintiffs, said that, if a surety paid the debt of his principal, he was entitled to the benefit of the securities held by the creditor, and that the creditor had no power to prejudice the rights of the surety by engaging in another transaction with the principal, to which the surety was not privy; and, therefore, Evans was not entitled to tack his further charge to his mortgage.--Copis v. Middleton, Turn, Russ., 224. Stuart Piggott, for Evans; said that the right which the sureties had, was to stand in precisely the same situation as the debtor was in at the time when the debt was paid off; and as, at that time, the creditor had a right, as against his debtor, to tack his further charge to his mortgage, he had the same right as against the sureties: and, therefore, they must pay off the further charge, before they could call upon the creditor to assign the mortgage to them.--Hodgson v. Shaw, 3 Mylne Sf Keen, 183. t The Vice-chancellor.--The equity of redemption was reserved to the mortgagor and not to the sureties. Their suretiship was created MORTGAGE--SURETY--THIRD PERSON, ETC. 159 toy the covenant at the end of the deed, and there was no stipulation in it that prevented the mortgagee from making the further advance. Therefore there was nothing to prevent the mortgagee from lending a further sum of money to the mortgagor. And, that being so, the right of the sureties to stand in the place of the mortg...