Case ID: h-j_2/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court oe Appeals", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Worthington, et al. vs. Bicknell.
    A executed a mortgage to B, of real ana personal property, to secure the payment of a sum in the then current money, and it was afterwards agreed between them, that the personal property should be teleased, on A’s endorsing on the mortgage that it was cl specie debt. A after-wards conveyed his equity of redemption in the real estate to C, who, on the representations of B, of the sum due on the mortgage, and that it should not be released unless C executed to him his bond ior that sum, did accordingly execute such bond; on which a suit at law was brought, and judgment rendered thereon. On a bill in chancery by C, an injunction was obtained to stay proceedings at law. The auditor was ordered to-state the mortgage debt in continental money, reducing it into spe* cie at 5 íor X, with interest, and credit the payments made; and on such statement it appeared that the debt was over paid. Decreed, that the injunction he perpetual.
    Parol evidence admitted to prove, that a debt secured by a mortgage was continental money, altho* expressed to be a specie debt.
    Where there is a mortgage, with a personal covenant by the mortgagor that he will pay the mo* ney, and he assigns his equity of redemption, is he a competent witness for the assignee to prove that the money loaned was continental money? Quere*
    
    The assignee of a mortgage is entitled, to the same relief that the mortgagor would have been en* titled to against the mortgagee.
    A decree in favour of the complainant, but -without costs, was on appeal by the defendant, reversed as to costs, and affirmed as to the residue; and decreed that the complainant should recover his cost» in both courts.
    Appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill, filed by the present appellees in 1801, stated that 
      Richard Robinson, being seized in fee of several tracts of land, on the 1st of May 1778, borrowed JÜ170 of the then current money, of R. T. B. Worthington, whose executors and representatives the appellants are, and executed a mortgage of his said lands, and sundry slaves, &c. for the payment of the said sum of money, with interest thereon, on the 1st of September then next ensuing. That Robin - son being about to leave the state, on the 6th of October 1782, applied to Worthington to release the personal property mortgaged, as the land was amply sufficient for the payment of the mortgage debt, which he refused to do unless Robinson would endorse on the mortgage the sum of money then due in gold and silver, which he agreed to, and the sum then stated to be due was £145 3 3 gold and silver, current money. That on the 15th of October 1783, Robinson assigned all his right, and equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises, to Ninian Riggs. That Robinson, after the mortgage, became indebted to the complainant, Bicknell, for money actually paid and advanced. That Robinson, in consideration thereof, and in consequence of a contract between the complainant and Riggs, agreed that the right of redemption in the mortgaged premises should he conveyed to the complainant, and a deed was accordingly executed. That the complainant having obtained the conveyance, and being interested in the payment of the mortgage debt, was applied to by Worthington on the subject, who represented to the complainant that there was then due from Robinson to him, lor principal and interest, the sum of £171 6 0, on the 26th of February 1791, and that the complainant could not and should not obtain the benefit of the equity of redemption by a release of the mortgage, unless he gave him his bond for that sum of money; and that the complainant, confiding in the representations of Worthington, gave his bond accordingly. That Worthington is since dead, and J, Worthington, one of the defendants, is his executor, who has brought an action at law on the bond, and obtained a judgment. That the executor, and the other defendants, on the 25th of July 1795, filed a bill against Robinson, Riggs, and the complainant, for a sale or foreclosure of the equity of redemption of the mortgaged premises. That by the answers to that bill, and the evidence taken, it appears that the sum loaned by Worthington to Robinson, and the mortgage taken, waste secure the payment of continental money, and that the sum ^ue’ ca^cu^ating i*s worth by the scale of depreciation, with legal interest, had been paid off or reduced to the sum. of ^9 5 2 current money, on the 13th of December 1798» That the executor of Worthington is indebted to the complainant in the sum of ¿£13 17 6, current money, for articles charged in the account exhibited. Prayer for a perpetual injunction against execution issuing on the judgment at law, and to compel a release of the mortgaged premises, &c.
    On the coming in of the answers, and on the testimony taken in the cause, amongst which was that of Robinson, the Auditor was directed to state an account between the parties. He made various statements, to which both parties excepted, and by the Chancellor’s order he made one, wherein the money loaned to Robinson on the mortgage, viz. ¿S170 continental money, xvas charged against Bichnell at 5 for 1, with the interest thereon, and after crediting payments made at various times, and the costs on the bill filed by the executors, &c. of Worthington, which they had dismissed, left abalance due to the complainant, on the 1st •of March 1804, of £10 111, current money,
    Hanson, Chancellor, (7th March, 1804,) decreed, that the injunction issued be perpetual; and that each party pay his own costs, &c. From this decree the defendants appealed to this court.
    The cause xvas argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan and Nicholson, J.
    
      Ridgely, for the appellants,
    contended, 1. That all the necessary and proper parties are not before the court. He referred to Hind’s Prac. 2. 2 Eq. Ab. 170, Pre. in Chan, 83.
    2. That Bichnell is not entitled to relief on account of the transaction betxveen Robinson and Worthington, because he is no party to the contract, and has no privity of interest, he not representing Robinson.
    
    3. That if Bichnell has a privity of interest, and is entitled to Robinson’s equity, yet there is no legal testimony in the cause to prove the facts alleged in the bill, because Robinson, the only person produced as a witness, is incompetentón two grounds, 1st. He is interested, because there is a personal covenant in his mortgage to Worthington, that lie will pay the money; and 2d. Because he is swearing to impeach the security he gave, and to invalidate his own act and deed. He cited Gilb. L. E. 122. Hesketh vs. Braddock, 3 Burr. 1856. Walton vs. Shelly, 1 T. R. 296. Buckland vs. Tankard, 5 T. R. 578. Goodliltle vs. Bailey, Cowp. 600. 1 Fonbl. 188. 1 Harr. Chan. 305, 613.
    
      Johnson, (Attorney General,) for the appellee,
    referred to Piddock vs. Brown, et. al. 3 P. Wms. 289. 2 Com. Dig. 96.
   The Court oe Appeals

decreed, that so much of the decree of the chancellor, as granted a perpetual injunction on the judgment in the bill and proceedings mentioned, be affirmed; and that that part of the said decree, by which each party was to pay his own costs, be reversed-, and also decreed, that the appellants pay to the appellee all the costs incurred by him in the court of chancery, and in this court.