Court Opinion

ID: 5192595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-06 15:38:32.95372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:57.456106
License: Public Domain

Van Brunt, P. J. (dissenting):
I dissent from the conclusion arrived at by the majority of the court. While, as between the mortgagor and the property, the mortgagor had the right to claim that the property should be first applied to the payment of the debt before recourse should be had to him, yet no such relation existed as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee as to entitle him to any of the rights of a surety. The case is entirely different from one where the grantee of premises assumes the payment of the mortgage. In that case he becomes the principal debtor and the original mortgagor becomes the surety. If, in this case, the mortgagor desired to prevent depreciation in the property upon which he had given the mortgage, it was a simple matter for him to pay his debt, which was the original obligation that he assumed, nobody being liable for any deficiency but himself. If he had done this, of course he would have the right to be subrogated to the security; and this was the true relation of the parties, and there was none of the elements of suretyship existing.
Patterson, J., concurred.
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.