Case Name: HUNT v. HUNT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-09-16
Citations: 67 Or. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUNT v. HUNT.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride and Mr. Justice Bean concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 178–187

Head Matter:
Motion to Enjoin a Suit Pending Appeal, denied June 3, 1913.
On the Merits, argued September 3,
decided September 16,
rehearing denied October 14, 1913.
HUNT v. HUNT.
(132 Pac. 958: 135 Pac. 1180.)
Appeal and Error — Jurisdiction on Appeal — Injunction.
1. Where, pending an appeal from a decree dismissing a suit to cancel a note and mortgage on the ground of fraud, the mortgagee instituted a suit to foreclose the mortgage, the Supreme Court would not, on the motion of appellant, restrain by 'injunction the prosecution of the foreclosure suit.
Action — Illegal Transactions.
2. An employer’s desire to prosecute criminally an employee for embezzling his property did not bar his recovery of the property or of its value, and henee he had a right to cash and a note and mortgage given by the employee for the amount embezzled.
Mortgages — Validity—Duress—Illegal Consideration.
3. Where an employee, after his arrest for embezzlement, asked that he be permitted to repay the amount embezzled, and there was no coercion, threats or vindictiveness on the part of the employer, nor promise, agreement, or understanding that the employee would not be prosecuted, a mortgage given for part of the amount embezzled was not obtained by duress and its consideration was not the employee’s release from the charge.
Homestead — Transfer—Joinder by Wife in Mortgage.
4. A homestead right may be waived by a wife by joining in a mortgage with her husband who owns the fee.
Mortgages — V alidity — Fraud.
5. A recital in a mortgage given by an employee for an amount embezzled by him that it was in consideration of a sum named to the mortgagors in hand paid, the receipt of which was thereby acknowledged, did not make the mortgagee a party to the mortgagor’s false representation to his wife to procure her signature thereto that it was given to secure a loan, since it was the usual form used in mortgages and might well be considered as referring to the employer’s money which the employee had received.
Mortgages — Consideration—Prior Debt.
6. A prior debt is a sufficient consideration to sustain a contract or mortgage.
[Precedent debt as consideration for chattel mortgage is the subject of a note in Ann. Cas. 1912C, 79.]
Mortgages — Validity—Fraud—Against Whom Available.
7. An employer who accepted a mortgage from an employee for the amount embezzled by him and extended the time for repaying such amount for six years was a bona fide purchaser for value as against the employee’s wife, who was induced to join in the mortgage by her husband’s false representation that it was given to secure a loan, since a pre-existing debt is sufficient to constitute a mortgagee a purchaser for a valuable consideration if it has a new element of consideration imported into the transaction.
From Marion: William Galloway, Judge.
This is a suit by Olive E. Hunt against Spencer S. Hunt and F. W. Spencer. From a decree in favor of the defendant Spencer, plaintiff appeals, and moves to enjoin a suit instituted to foreclose a mortgage that plaintiff alleges was procured by fraud pending appeal.
Motion Denied.
For the motion there was a brief over the names of Mr. Woodson T. Slater and Mr. Myron E. Pogue, with an oral argument by Mr. Slater.
Contra, there was a brief over the name of Carson & Brown, with an oral argument by Mr. John A. Car- ' son.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The substance of the complaint herein is that the defendant Spencer accused the plaintiff's husband, the other defendant, of the crime of embezzlement, and caused his arrest without a warrant on that charge; that while under compulsion of arrest the husband agreed with Spencer to give the latter a note for $1,700 and secure the same by the signature of the plaintiff and their mortgage upon their homestead all upon the illegal agreement of Spencer not to prosecute the husband for the alleged crime; that the charge and the corrupt agreement were concealed from the plaintiff by Spencer and the husband, the latter of whom, with Spencer's knowledge and contrivance, fraudulently represented to her that the note and mortgage were being executed for a present loan of money which the husband was obtaining from'Spencer for the purpose of engaging in business on his own account; and that in that manner only was her signature obtained. Subsequent discovery by the plaintiff of the alleged fraud is alleged, and the plaintiff prays for cancellation of the note and mortgage. Issues were formed, and the Circuit Court heard the cause, entering a decree dismissing the suit, from which the plaintiff appealed.
Meanwhile Spencer instituted suit to foreclose the mortgage, and now the plaintiff in this suit to cancel that indenture moves this court to enjoin the prosecu tion of the foreclosure suit on the ground that it will result in the extinction of the subject of this suit whereby the jurisdiction of this court over the rem in question will be ousted. If the pendency of the present suit is a proper basis for resisting the prosecution of the foreclosure suit by injunction, it might be used there under the plea of lis pendens. If it is no obstacle to that suit, the way is open there to urge the alleged fraud to defeat the note and mortgage as against this plaintiff. At any rate, no cause is presented here calling for the extraordinary remedy of injunction at the hands of this court. We do not intimate what value the situation has for either party in the foreclosure suit. All we decide is that injunction out of this court will not lie on the case made under the motion.
It is therefore denied. Motion Denied.