Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0498-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Collett, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LODWICK AND OTHERS v. JOHNSON AND GLAZE.
    Priority of lien — holder of two, one in which another has an interest may be compelled to exhaust the exclusive lien first — equity—notice.
    It is a well-settled rule that where tw-o have a lien on one piece of property, and the lien of one of them includes another piece of property, he shall first exhaust that subject to his exclusive lien, and iesovt to the remainder subject to both only for the residue.
    Those who deal with equities, must notice the extent of the equities at their peril, as they can only take what the holder had to convey.
    In Chancery. The bill claims the foreclosure and sale of twenty-five acres of land held by mortgage, and for the conveyance and sale of twenty-five and a half acres of land, of which Johnson held only the title bond of Glaze; both tracts were mortgaged to secure the payment to the complainants of certain- notes.
    Johnson has not answered. Glaze answei’s, and disclaims all knowledge of, or interest in the twenty-five acres; but as to the twenty-five and a half acres, asserts a lien on; it for a debt due him by Johnson, for which he pledged the land with him after the date of the mortgage. He- admitted that at the time of the pledge of the bond with him, he knew of the mortgage-
    
      Clough, for the complainants,
    claimed an order of sale of the twenty-five acres, of which Johnson had the fee, and that Glaze should convey to the complainants the other twenty-five and a half aci'es.
    
      S. M. Tracy, contra,
    insisted that no case was made to chai'ge Glaze; nor was there any proof of what sum was due to the plaintiffs.
   Collett, C. J.

The question of notice has little to do with this controversy. Glaze only claims to assert his prior lien on the twenty-five and a half acres, the title bond for which he gave, and afterwai'ds received the same in pledge for advances. Those who deal with equities can only take what the holder had to convey, and must notice the extent of the intei’est at his peril.

But there is no proof of any thing due to the complainants. Where are the notes? If unpaid, why are they not pi’odxxced? If paid or transfei’red, the complainant cannot proceed.

It is a well-settled rule, that whex;e two have a lien on one- piece of property,, and one of them has a separate lien on another piece, he shall first exhaust that on which he has an exclusive lien, and chai-ge the property jointly held only for the residue. Apply that rule here, and the twenty-five aci’es must be fii'st sold. The case is referred to á master to take an account of what is due the complainánts, the value of the several tracts, &c. and is continued, for repoi't.