Case ID: tex_7/html/0231-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hemphill, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pridgen v. Andrews.
    ’Where the vendee, holding under a bond for title, executes a mortgage to a third person, the vendor is not a proper party to a suit to foreclose, and will not be affected by the decree. A plea in abatement which presents no ground for abating the suit may be disposed of by a motion to strike out.
    Where a note stipulates for the payment of conventional interest from date, the conventional interest runs until payment, or judgment at least.
    Appeal from DeWitt. Suit by appellee upon the following note, secured by mortgage, with prayer for sale of the mortgaged property :
    “On or before^the first day of October next I promise to pay George C. •Craig, or order, the sum of one thousand eight hundred and eighteen ($1,818) dollars, with ten per cent, interest from date, for value received this 30th day ■of October, 1850. “II. McB. Pridgen,”
    The note was indorsed to the plaintiff, and there was a formal assignment of the mortgage.
    The defendant pleaded in abatement for want of proper parties, alleging that he held the mortgaged property merely by a bond for title from a third ■person, (naming him,) averring that the same was known to the payee and indorsee of the note at the time of the making and indorsement thereof, and praying that the suit abate on account of the failure to join said third person as :a party. This plea was, on motion, stricken out. There was also a general ■denial.
    Tlie jury, on the 1st of November, 1851, found for the plaintiff “the sum of ■eighteen hundred and eighteen dollars, and ten per cent, interest from date of note; ” “ whereupon it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiff, Samuel Andrews, do have and recover of and.from the defendant, Henderson McB. Pridgen, the said sum of eighteen hundred and eighteen •dollars, with one hundred and eighty dollars and eighty cents interest there-'rnpon, amounting in all to the sum of nineteen hundred and ninety-nine dollars and eighty cents,” &c., and decreeing a sale of the mortgaged property, <&c., as prescribed by tire statute.
    The errors assigned were—
    1st. In striking out the plea in abatement.
    2d. That the judgment was excessive.
    3d. In decreeing a sale of the mortgaged property, instead of allowing exe■cution to run as in ordinary cases.
    
      W. S. Glass, for appellee.
   Hemphill, Ch. J.

The grounds of appeal in this ease are untenable. If the appellant, under his bond for title, held such interest as could he mortgaged, (and tills is not disputed,) he alone need he summoned in a suit for foreclosure. His vendors, either immediate or remote, are not necessary parties. They have no interest in the suit, and are not affected or concluded by the decree or the proceedings in the cause. There is no excess in the interest as estimated by the jury. If there be error in their computation, it was in favor of the defendant. It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment be affirmed, with ten per cent, as damages for the delay.

Affirmed with damages.