Case Name: C. A. Wamble et al. v. W. W. Gant et al.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1903-12
Citations: 112 Tenn. 327
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. A. Wamble et al. v. W. W. Gant et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 327–330

Head Matter:
C. A. Wamble et al. v. W. W. Gant et al.
(Nashville.
December Term, 1903.)
1. MORTGAGES. Payment of mortgage debt reinvests title in mortgageor.
Upon tbe payment of the mortgage debt, tbe title of the land mortgaged becomes reinvested in tbe mortgageor. (Post, p. 330.)
Cases cited and approved: Vaughn v. Vaughn, 100 Tenn., 282-284; Furguson v. Coward, 12 Heis, 572; Relfe v. McComb, 2 Head, 559; Carter v. Taylor, 3 Head, 30.
2. SAME. Same. And judgment lien attaches, and continues for one year, though judgment is then more than one year old.
Upon tbe payment of tbe mortgage debt, and thus revesting' tbe title in tbe mortgageor, the land immediately passes -under tbe judgment lien so to remain for one year from tbe date of revest-ing, although tbe judgment is then more than one year old. (Post, p. 330.)
Cases cited and approved: Cbapron v. Cassaday, 3 Hum., 661-663; Davis v. Benton, 2 Sneed, 666-668; Relfe v. McComb, 2 Head, 559; Bridges v. Cooper, 98 Tenn. 394.
FROM BEDFORD.
Appeal from tbe Chancery Court of Bedford County— W. S. BeaRden, Chancellor.
Statement by Mr. Justice Neil:
On November 7, 1901, tbe defendant Gant recovered a decree in tbe chancery court of Bedford county against C. A. Wamble for $473.85 and costs; and on December 17, 1901, a certified copy of this decree was registered in Moore county, in wbicb county Wamble lived. When tbe decree was rendered, Wamble was tbe owner in remainder of a tract of land described in tbe pleadings, situated in Bedford county, upon wbicb bis mother was then, and is now, living; she owning a life estate in it.
On November 7, 1901, tbe day upon wbicb Gant obtained bis decree, and before that decree was recovered, Wamble executed to W. H. Crowell a mortgage upon bis-interest in tbe land, to secure a debt wbicb be owed to-Crowell. This debt was paid in full November 26, 1902.
On November 29, 1902, Wamble and wife executed a ' mortgage or trust deed on Wamble’s interest in tbe land to secure a debt owing for borrowed money wbicb be obtained from Mrs. Hale.
Prior to tbe execution of this latter mortgage, and while tbe former was still in force (that is, on October 27, 1902), Gant caused to be issued an execution on bis-decree against Wamble, and on tbe same day caused it to be levied upon tbe interest of Wamble in tbe tract of' land in question, and a sale of this interest was advertised for February 13,1903. This sale was sought to been joined under tbe original bill filed in this case.
Gant procured a modification of tbe preliminary injunction granted under tbe original bill, so as to be al .lowed to have another execution issued, on his decree. This second execution was issued and was levied on the land August 28, 1903.
Such pleadings were had -by amendment of the original bill, and by filing of the cross bill, as to present, on the one hand, the right of the complainants to enjoin any sale under either execution, and, on the other hand, to enforce the lien of Gant, acquired by his levy, by a sale of the land, in the chancery court.
The chancellor decreed in favor of Gant, and directed a sale to enforce the lien acquired by his levy.
It appears that a portion of the money which Wamble borrowed from Mrs. Hale was used by him in paying off the Crowell debt, but it is not shown that at the time he borrowed this money there was any agreement that the money should be so used, or that the Crowell mortgage should be kept alive for the benefit of Mrs. Hale.
W. H. Ceowell, for complainants.
Shapard & Son, for defendants.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Neil,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this court both sides have treated the levy of October 27, 1901, as ineffective as we suppose, on the ground that the property was at the time under mortgage, and not subject to levy (Pratt v. Phillips, 1 Sneed, 543-547, 60 Am. Dec., 162), and have pitched the controversy upon the question as to whether the second levy became effective on the land by reason of the satisfaction of the Crowell mortgage.
We shall treat the case from the same standpoint, without passing at all upon the first question suggested.
Upon the payment of the" Crowell mortgage, the title to the land became reinvested in Wamble. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 100 Tenn., 282-284, 45 S. W., 677; Furguson v. Coward, 12 Heisk., 572; Carter v. Taylor, 3 Head, 30. The land thereupon immediately passed under the judgment lien of Gant, so to remain for one year from the date on which the title was revested. Bridges v. Cooper, 98 Tenn., 394, 39 S. W., 723; Davis v. Benton, 2 Sneed, 666-668; Chapron v. Cassaday, 3 Humph., 661-663. This is true although the judgment was then more than one year old.
The precise question arising in this case was determined in Relfe v. McComb, 2 Head, 559, 75 Am. Dec., 748. It was there held that upon payment of the mortgage debt, and the revesting of the title in the mortgagor, the land passed under the judgment lien.
It results that there was no error in the decree of the court of chancery appeals, and it is affirmed.