Case Name: Coit v. Fitch
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1787-03
Citations: 1 Kirby 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: Coit v. Fitch.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 254–256

Head Matter:
Coit v. Fitch.
Pendency of a suit upon a bond, is no bar to an action of ejectment, for' tbe recovery of lands mortgaged in security of the same debt. ‘
AotioN of disseisin.— Plea — That on the 15tb day of July, 1783, tbe defendant was indebted to tbe plaintiff, in tbe sum of £720 14s. lid. wbicb before tbat time bad been secured to tbe plaintiff by two notes of band, payable on demand: Tbat on said 15tb day of July,, 1783, tbe plaintiff required a further security for said debt; and tbe defendant, in order to obtain a further day of payment, did make and execute to tbe plaintiff, two deeds of tbe lands described in tbe plaintiff’s declaration, on condition, tbat if said Fitch, bis heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, should well and truly pay, or cause to be paid, to tbe said Coit, bis heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, said two notes of band, demanding said sum of £720 14s. lid. then said deeds to be void; wbicb is tbe only title by wbicb tbe plaintiff challenges, and pretends to bold tbe demanded premises: Tbat on tbe 30th day of April, 1785, tbe defendant paid to tbe plaintiff, tbe sum of £189 9s. 5d. in full .discharge of one of said notes, and tbe plaintiff received tbe same in payment thereof, and wbicb was tbe whole sum secured by said note. And tbe plaintiff instituted a suit against tbe defendant on tbe other note, mentioned in said deed, before tbe Court of Common Pleas, in tbe county of New London, and on tbe first Tuesday of February, 1785, recovered a judgment for tbe sum due thereon, and cost; and tbe plaintiff now bath bis execution thereon, ready to be collected: Wherefore, tbe plaintiff having made bis election of tbe personal security given as aforesaid, said deeds have become void in law.
There was a replication and demurrer thereto; but the question made by the counsel, respected the sufficiency of the plea only.
Mr. Chandler and Mr. Dixon, for the defendant,
contended •— That the principles of the English law, respecting mortgages, were not applicable to the present ease; for in England they were strictly dead pledges, and the mortgagee holds no other security for his debt; or he enters into possession, and pays himself with the rents; but here there were obligations, or personal security, given for the debt, and the creditor also held real estate, or collateral security for the same: Ho therefore had a double remedy, and might pursue ■which he pleased; when he had made his election, ho should be bound by it. In this case, the creditor had made his election, by receiving part of the money, and commencing a suit for the remainder; he was therefore bound to pursue that line only for satisfaction.
Mr. Spalding, for the plaintiff,
contended — That the mortgage deed conveyed an estate, defeasible only on condition of full payment; and that the creditor might pursue all his remedies at once, until that object was obtained, and that nothing short of that could affect the plaintiff’s title.

Opinion:
By the whole Court.
The plaintiff's deed vested him immediately with the fee of the land, and was defeasible only by the payment of two certain notes, one of which is not yet paid. The suit had upon it was a demand, but not payment. As to the plaintiff's having made his election by that suit, it is true, he can have but one satisfaction for his debt, but both securities hold till he has that. No proceedings on the note, short of payment, will exonerate the land; nor will ejectment, or any proceedings on the land, discharge the note, unless it be a foreclosure of tbe equity of redemption, which takes it out of tbe nature of .a pledge, and appropriates it in payment; nor, as batb been contended, is tbe pendency of a process on one of tbe securities, a bar in tbe meantime to a process on tbe other. It batb been adjudged, that pending a process in chancery, for a foreclosure, a suit may be brought on tbe bond- — -in tbe case of Burnell v. Martin, Douglas' Rep. 401. In which case it was said, by tbe judge, to have been "settled, over and over again, that a person in such case, is at liberty to pursue all bis remedies at once." Satisfaction for tbe debt, is tbe object; tbis it is tbe duty of tbe debtor to make, and all tbe pledges or securities bo lias seen fit to give, to enforce a fulfillment of tbe duty, bold, and may be relied on and pursued, until it is performed. Should there be an attempt to pursue either of them farther, specific relief may be bad, by an audita querela, or a bill in equity: Wherefore, the process upon tbe note, in this case, as it has not produced satisfaction of tbe debt, is no bar to tbe present action.
So judgment was rendered for tbe plaintiff.
Note.— Tbis judgment was afterwards affirmed in tbe Supreme Court of Errors.