Case Name: The Farmers Bank of Canton v. The Commercial Bank of Lake Erie
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1840-12
Citations: 10 Ohio 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Farmers Bank of Canton v. The Commercial Bank of Lake Erie.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 10
Pages: 71–78

Head Matter:
*The Farmers Bank of Canton v. The Commercial Bank of Lake Erie.
Lands mortgaged may be sold on judgment and execution against the mortgagor.
This is a certiorari to the court of common pleas of the county of Cuyahoga.
It brings into this court the proceedings in the court of common pleas, upon a motion to appropriate money, made on execution ; and the case is submitted, on an agreed state of facts, in substance as follows:
The Farmers Bank of Canton, on August 12, 1837, recovered judgment, in the Supreme Court of Cuyahoga county, against Alanson Penfield, for $3,126.06, including costs, which was remanded to the court of common pleas for execution. Upon this judgment no execution was issued within one year succeeding its rendition and return to the court of common pleas, nor until after the recovery of a judgment by the Commercial Bank of Lake Erie, as hereinafter stated.
On April 16, 1838, Alanson Penfield mortgaged a house and lot on St. Clair sti’cet, in Cleveland, with other property, to Peter Pen-field and Horace Penfield, to indemnify them against their liabilities as sureties for the said Alanson Penfield to the Commercial Bank of Lake Erie, on several notes, amounting in the whole to $11,000, which it is agreed is more than the whole value of the property mortgaged. Said Peter and Horace have not paid, nor have they been expressly relieved from any of said liabilities.
'On July 1, 1839, the Commercial Bank of Lake Erie recovered judgment, in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, against Alanson Penfield, for $4,388.36, including costs. Within one year after the date of this judgment, an execution was issued on the same, and also an execution on the judgment in favor of 72] the Farmers Bank of Canton. *Both these executions bear date and were delivered to the sheriff on the same day. They were both' levied on the house and lot on St. Clair street, which were offered for sale and bid off by the Commercial Bank for $2,076, being more than two-thirds the appraised value.
On this state of facts, the court of common pleas decided that the Commercial Bank had the better lien, and ordered the money to be paid over accordingly.
To reverse this order, this writ of certiorari is prosecuted.
Harris & Brown, for the plaintiff:
Alanson Penfield had no interest in the mortgaged premises upon which the judgment of the Commercial Bank could operate aB a lien, he having a mere equity of redemption, which could not be sold upon execution at law, but must be subjected to sale by proceeding in equity under section 16 of the chancery act. 29 Ohio L. 84. The judgment of the Farmers Bank of Canton operated as a lien upon the land, which is preferable to that created by the mortgage to P. and H. Penfield.
S. J. Andrews, for the defendant,
cited McCormick v. Alexander, Ohio Cond. 254; Earnfit v. Winans, Ib. 504; Shuel v. Ferguson, Id. 505 ; Waymire v. Staley, Id. 606 ; Thompson v. Atherton 6 Ohio, 30; Ely v. McGuire, 2 Ohio, 223; Phelps v. Butler, Id. 224; Baird v. Kirtland, 8 Ohio, 21 ; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johns. 41; Stewart v. Waters, 1 Caine’s Cases, 47; Hitchcock v. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290.

Opinion:
Hitchcock, J.
From the statement of the case, it will be seen that the lien of the judgment of the Farmers Bank of Canton had lost its preference as to any other bona fide judgment creditor, at the time the execution on that judgment was issued. But the lien of the Commercial Bank of Lake Erie was in full force, if at any time the judgment in its favor operated' as a lien upon the property sold. But it is insisted *by counsel for the plaintiff, [73 that this latter judgment did not operate at all as a lien, on account of the mortgage which had been executed previous to its rendition, and it is further insisted that mortgaged premises can not be sold on execution.
Admitting this principle, as a general rule, to be correct, it might be well questioned whether it would apply in this case. This mortgage was executed for the purpose of indemnifying the mortgagees against any liability which they might be subjected to in consequence of having become the securities of the mortgagor to the Commercial Bank. To it tlio bank was in no shape a party. The judgment recovered was upon one of the notes upon which the mortgagees were securities, and the sale of the property would go so far to release them from their liability. To the extent of the amount made, they would be absolutely released. The result of the argument of counsel is this: the mortgagees can not hold the property, because they are purchasers, and as to all purchasers the judgment of the Farmers Bank is still a lien. The Commercial Bank had no lien, because the property had been previously mortgaged. But the question, whether mortgaged premises can be sold on execution is not a new one in this state. If it were we might have some difficulty about it. In the cases of Ely v. McGuire, 2 Ohio, 223, and of Phelps v. Butler, 2 Ohio, 224, it was held, that where the mortgagor was in possession and the condition had not been forfeited, the land mortgaged might be sold on execution against the mortgagor. This is precisely the situation of the case before the court. The mortgagor was in possession, and the mortgagees had not sustained any loss in consequence of their liabilities. The same principle was recognized in the case of Baird v. Kirtland and others, 8 Ohio, 21. A majority of the court sitting in this case feel bound by these decisions.* Nor do we see'any evil which can result. The interest of mortgagees are not affected. And when it is considered that the land must be sold for two-thirds its appraised value, certainly a mortgagor has no reason to complain.
74] *Tlie order of the court of common pleas is affirmed, with costs.