Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Woodworth v. Blair

Woodworth v. Blair, 112 U.S. 8 (1884)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1884-10-27
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Woodworth v. Blair. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Real Property Law — Mortgages A mortgagee whose mortgage covers only a specifically described tract of land has no lien on the mortgagor corporation's title to other lands or to the portion of its railroad not laid over the mortgaged tract, and such a mortgage is distinguishable from a statutory mechanic's lien for work done on part of a railroad, which may extend to the whole road.
  2. Civil Procedure — Joinder As a general rule, a prior mortgagee is not a necessary party to a bill to foreclose a junior mortgage where the decree sought is only for 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 (cited in text)
  3. Civil Procedure — Foreclosure — Prior Encumbrances In a suit to foreclose a mortgage of the whole railroad, franchise, and property of a railroad corporation, determining the validity and extent of all prior liens and encumbrances on specific parts of the corporate property before entering a final decree would often produce great delay and embarrassment; dismissing an intervening claimant's petition without prejudice and ordering a foreclosure sale of the entire property subject to her mortgage judiciously and effectively secures the rights of all parties.
  4. Real Property Law — Mortgages Where property is sold subject to a mortgage, the sale price will be lower than if sold free of that mortgage, so that paying the mortgage amount out of the sale proceeds would correspondingly benefit the purchaser (or the mortgagor corporation upon redemption) at the equal detriment of holders of bonds secured by later mortgages; the mortgagor corporation, after redeeming its property from the later mortgages, holds it subject to any valid lien of the prior mortgagee just as it did before foreclosure proceedings were instituted.
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.