Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/224/834/146009/
Timestamp: 2019-11-13 00:21:14
Document Index: 569996374

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 622', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 444', '§ 2', '§ 602']

In the Matter of Riddlesburg Mining Company, Inc., Debtor.appeal of Don A. Marshall, Personally, and Commercial Coal & Coke Corporation Andwaldo & Maltby, Inc.appeal of Don A. Marshall, Personally, Andwaldo & Maltby, Inc, 224 F.2d 834 (3d Cir. 1955) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1955 › In the Matter of Riddlesburg Mining Company, Inc., Debtor.appeal of Don A. Marshall, Personally, and...
In the Matter of Riddlesburg Mining Company, Inc., Debtor.appeal of Don A. Marshall, Personally, and Commercial Coal & Coke Corporation Andwaldo & Maltby, Inc.appeal of Don A. Marshall, Personally, Andwaldo & Maltby, Inc, 224 F.2d 834 (3d Cir. 1955)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 224 F.2d 834 (3d Cir. 1955) Argued March 7, 1955
Thus, the mortgage was security for the $50,000 plus any advances made by Union. An assignee would have security only for assigned debts owing to Union by Riddlesburg because of the $50,000 loan or advances by Union. There is no provision in the mortgage that the assignee also has security for advances made to the mortgagor. There does not appear to be any Pennsylvania case which has decided this particular matter. But, in view of the absence of ambiguity in the language of the mortgage indenture, there seems no doubt that in a Pennsylvania court the same result would be reached. Appellants cite In re Great Lakes Lumber Company, D.C.W. D. Pa. 1925, 8 F.2d 96, as holding to the contrary under similar mortgage provisions. It is not clear from that opinion just what the mortgage provisions were. To the extent that that opinion is in conflict with our views, we think it incorrect.
Appellants introduced into evidence a letter from Riddlesburg to Waldo and Maltby, Inc., written a short time before Waldo and Maltby, Inc., received the assignment from Union. Appellants contend that this letter indicates that Riddlesburg intended that Waldo and Maltby, Inc., should hold the original mortgage as security for advances made by Waldo and Maltby, Inc., or for any other indebtedness due to Waldo and Maltby, Inc. This contention was vigorously disputed before the special master, who concluded, after hearing oral evidence, that the letter did not express such an intention. Problems raised concerning this letter and the oral evidence used as an aid to interpretation of the letter are immaterial since, even if the letter was an attempt to alter the clear meaning of the original mortgage indenture, and, assuming that it met Pennsylvania requirements for a valid mortgage (which it did not), it was not effectual to create a lien on the debtor's property because it was not properly recorded. See Act of April 27, 1927, P.L. 440, § 1, 21 Purdon's Pa.Stat. Annot. § 622; Act of March 18, 1775, 1 Sm.L. 422, § 1, as amended May 19, 1893, P.L. 108, § 1, 21 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Annot. § 444; Act of June 28, 1951, P.L. 927, § 2, 68 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Annot. § 602; Southwestern Nat. Bank v. Riegner, 1928, 292 Pa. 74, 140 A. 615; Stover v. Valley Nat. Bank, 3 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 54, 55; In re Fortescue, D.C.E.D. Pa. 1954, 122 F. Supp. 883, 884.