Court Opinion

ID: 9688379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:44:51.007755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:37.916968
License: Public Domain

McGeh.ee, O. J.
(specially concurring).
I concur in the result reached in this case, and especially for the reason that if the junior mortgagee had advised the senior mortgagee of the fact that he had not only taken the junior mortgage, but also had obtained a quitclaim deed from the mortgagor to the property in question before the $650 was advanced to the mortgagor by the senior mortgagee, the property did not become subject to the senior mortgage for the subsequent advance of *303the $650 since the mortgagor had parted with all right, title and interest in the property at the time he obtained the additional advance of $650 from the senior mortgagee. He conld not further encumber the property by obtaining an additional advance as provided for under the senior mortgage, for the reason that he had no right to encumber property, the title to which he had become divested, where such fact was known to the senior mortgagee thereof at the time he made the further advancement.
I think that the case of Witczinski v. Everman, 51 Miss. 841, is distinguishable from the case at bar on its facts, and, in my opinion, is not controlling in the instant case.