Court Opinion

ID: 6660514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:01:35.65395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:09.214398
License: Public Domain

Sedgwick, J.,
concurring.
The first assignment, as introduced in evidence, does not assume to assign the note at all. It simply assigns the mortgagee’s interest in the land mortgaged. The second paper introduced in evidence was clearly in its "form and wording not intended as an indorsement of the note, and that I suppose is the real test. If there had been no room upon the back of the note for a regular indorsement, and a paper was attached purporting and intended as an indorsement, then plaintiff might have been an innocent purchaser.
The findings of the trial court upon the question whether plaintiff is a bona fide holder without notice are inconsistent, unless we very liberally construe the first and seventh findings. The sixteenth finding is that the note, not being indorsed in writing or on a paper attached thereto, is subject to any defense that the defendants might have against the original payee, and the decree is based upon that theory ; therefore, in the first and seventh findings the court must have meant the plaintiff had no actual notice, and did not refer to the notice that follows from the fact that the note was not indorsed.
The findings of the trial court will not support the judgment dismissing the action. There are no findings as to values or damages, and, of course, if the plaintiff lias any interest in the property his action ought not to be dismissed. The case at bar involves the same questions that were presented and litigated in the former action, and, if that former action was not finally determined at the time that the case at bar was tried in the lower court, that court should have continued the case at bar until tiie former action was finally determined, and then should have rendered his decree accordingly. The case being in *796equity and all the parties interested before the court, the court in rendering a final decree should have disposed of the whole matter and fixed and enforced the rights of all the parties.
There is considerable discussion in the briefs as to whether an action, or rather a claim, like that of Mr. Streit, could be presented and litigated before he had been evicted from the premises. Johnson sold him the land and took a mortgage back, and is now trying to foreclose that mortgage. He invokes the powers of a court of equity and should, do equity. The question as to the form of a warranty, and whether there must be an eviction pleaded and proved, is immaterial in the case. It would not be doing equity on the part of the plaintiff to sell Streit or his grantor a piece of land and take a mortgage; back, and then foreclose the mortgage and take the land and not allow Streit to defend, because he, Streit, had not been evicted. According to the allegations of the petition, the first action was begun before Johnson sold the mortgage; itself, and the man Hall, to whom Johnson sold the mortgage, was made a party and duly served with process. He was holding it as a bailee for Johnson, and he could not buy it as an innocent purchaser after that.
In the former action it was found that Streit’s title had in part failed, and by the decree he was subrogated to a mortgage which appears to be prior to the title of those who were successful in attacking Streit’s title, s) that they could not take the land away from Streit without paying the prior mortgage. Clearly, the court in the case at bar should not allow Streit to be foreclosed and removed from the land without hearing and adjudicating his counterclaim. The old mortgage would inure to the benefit of the plaintiff, and the court should, if necessary, have the interest of the parties who were claiming the land against Streit sold under the old mortgage; that is, the court should determine the whole matter and take such action as would, as far as possible, protect all of the *797innocent parties, and place the loss, if any, where it belongs.