Case ID: greene_1/html/0382-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hastings, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Knetzer v. Bradstreet.
    A note made in connection with, a mortgage, need not, in a proceeding to foreclose, be made a part of the bill, if such note is produced in court subject to an order of cancelation.
    A mortgage can be foreclosed, though a suit at law is pending on the note; but a payment of one will be in satisfaction of both.
    In Equity. Appeal from Bes Moines District Court.
    
    This was a bill in chancery to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant demurred on the ground, that the note given in connection with the mortgage was not made a part of, or given as an exhibit with the bill. Demurrer overruled, and a decree rendered for complainant.
    
      David Rarer, for the appellant.
    
      M. D. Browning, for the appellee.
   Opinion by

Hastings, C. J.

It is not necessary in a bill in chancery to foreclose a mortgage to make the note, for the payment of which the mortgage was executed, a part of the bill. It is sufficient to produce the note at the hearing, ready to be canceled, if required, as was done in this case. If the note has been negotiated, it is a matter to be set up in the defence. Although the mortgage is an incident to the debt, it is an independent contract of a higher grade, and can be foreclosed although a suit is pending at law for a judgment on the note. The court will protect the party, however, from a second payment of the debt; and when the debt is paid, will see that satisfaction is entered of record of both causes of action, if necessary.

Decree affirmed.