Court Opinion

ID: 89012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:01:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.758765
License: Public Domain

88 U.S. 289 (____)
21 Wall. 289
TERRELL ET AL.
v.
ALLISON.
Supreme Court of United States.

*291 Messrs. P. Phillips, Nugent, and Yerger, for the appellants. No opposing counsel.
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:
A writ of assistance is undoubtedly an appropriate process to issue from a court of equity to place a purchaser of mortgaged premises under its decree in possession after he has received the commissioner's or master's deed, as against parties who are bound by the decree and who refuse to surrender possession pursuant to its direction or other order of the court. The power to issue the writ results from the principle, that the jurisdiction of the court to enforce its decree is coextensive with its jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties, and to subject to sale the property mortgaged. It is a rule of that court to do complete justice when that is practicable, not merely by declaring the right, but by affording a remedy for its enjoyment. It does not turn the party to another forum to enforce a right which it has itself established. When, therefore, it decrees the sale of property it perfects the transaction by giving with the deed possession to the purchaser. "If it was to be understood," says Chancellor Kent, "that after a decree and sale of mortgaged premises the mortgagor or other party to the suit, or perhaps those who have been let into the possession by the mortgagor pendente lite, could withhold the possession in defiance of the authority of this court and compel the purchaser to resort to a court of law, I apprehend that the delay and expense and inconvenience of such a course of proceeding would greatly impair the value and diminish the results of sales under a decree."[*]
But the writ of assistance can only issue against parties bound by the decree, which is only saying that the execution cannot exceed the decree which it enforces. And that the owner of the property mortgaged, which is directed to *292 be sold, can only be bound when he has had notice of the proceedings for its sale, if he acquired his interest previous to their institution, is too obvious to require either argument or authority. It is a rule old as the law that no man shall be condemned in his rights of property, as well as in his rights of person, without his day in court; that is, without being duly cited to answer respecting them, and being heard or having opportunity of being heard thereon.
Under the old theory of mortgages, when they were treated as conveyances, the property passed to the mortgagee upon condition that it should revert to the mortgagor if the obligation, for the security of which it was executed, was performed, otherwise that the mortgagee's interest should become absolute. The mortgage was in terms the conveyance of a conditional estate, which became absolute upon breach of the condition. But courts of equity at an early day, looking beyond the terms of the instrument to the real character of the transaction, as one of security and not of purchase, interfered and gave to the mortgagor a right to redeem the property from the forfeiture following the breach, upon discharge of the debt secured, or other obligation, within a reasonable period. With this equitable right of redemption in the mortgagor a corresponding right in the mortgagee to insist upon the discharge of the debt, or other obligation secured, within a reasonable time, or a relinquishment of the right to redeem, was recognized by those courts. The mortgagee could, therefore, bring his suit to foreclose the equity of redemption, unless the debt or other obligation was discharged within a reasonable time. To such a proceeding the holder of the equity of redemption was an essential party, for it was his right that was to be affected. His equity of redemption was regarded as the real and beneficial estate in the land; it was subject to transfer by him, and to seizure and sale on judicial process against him. If it were transferred to another, such other party stood in his shoes and was equally entitled to be heard before his right could be cut off. It was certainly possible for him to show that the mortgage was satisfied, or his liability *293 released, or that in some other way the suit could not be maintained. The holder of the equity of redemption was, therefore, an indispensable party to a valid foreclosure.
The old common-law doctrine of mortgages does not now generally prevail in the several States of the Union. In most of them the mortgage is not regarded as a conveyance, but is treated as a mere lien or incumbrance upon the property as security for the payment of a debt, or the performance of some other pecuniary obligation. But the owner of the property, whether the original mortgagor or his successor in interest, has the same right to be heard respecting the existence of the debt or other obligation alleged before the property can be sold, which at common law the owner of the equity of redemption had to be heard before the foreclosure of his equity could be decreed.[*]
Applying these views to the present case it is evident that the learned judge of the court below erred. Mrs. Kyle purchased the premises mortgaged before the institution of the suit for the sale of the property and was placed in their possession. She was, therefore, an indispensable party to that suit, and was not bound by the decree rendered in her absence. The two Terrells took, by their purchase, whatever rights she possessed; if she was not bound by the decree neither are they bound. They stand in her shoes and have all the rights and equities with respect to the property which she possessed. The writ of assistance could not be executed against her or against them claiming under her, her rights not having been affected by the decree. A writ of assistance can only issue against parties to the proceedings, and parties entering into possession under them after suit commenced, pendente lite.[]
It is true that the two Terrells purchased the premises after suit brought for their sale, but not from a party to such suit, or from any one who had acquired his interest subsequent to its commencement. They do not come, therefore, *294 within the meaning of the rule which makes the decree bind parties purchasing pendente lite.
The decree awarding the writ must, therefore, be REVERSED, and the cause remanded to the court below with directions to
DISMISS THE PETITION OF THE PURCHASER.
NOTES
[*]  Kershaw v. Thompson, 4 Johnson's Chancery, 609; see also Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 California, 191.
[*]  See Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 California, 466, 467.
[]  Frelinghuysen v. Cowden, 4 Paige, 204; Van Hook v. Throckmorton, 8 Id. 33; Reed v. Marble, 10 Id. 409.