Court Opinion

ID: 5432332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 17:48:02.858637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:40.834325
License: Public Domain

By the Court,

Bennett, J.
The suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage. The bill alleges an indebtedness from the defendants to the plaintiff, to secure which the mortgage is claimed to have been given. The answer admits that the plaintiff held the notes of the defendants for the amount charged in the complaint to be due, but states that the notes were delivered up to be can-celled, at the time the mortgage was given, with an understanding that the mortgagee was to look only to the mortgaged premises, and waive all claim upon the personal responsibility of the defendants. There seems to have been no evidence given— none is returned. The judgment of the district court was, that the mortgaged premises be sold ; but the court refused to gire judgment for execution against the defendants, in case the *353mortgaged premises should not sell for sufficient to pay the mortgage debt.
We think a new trial should be ordered, for the purpose of ascertaining, 1st. Whether the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff at the time of giving the mortgage, and if so, in what amount; and 2d. Whether, if any indebtedness existed, it was agreed, at the time of giving the mortgage, that the plaintiff should look to the mortgaged premises alone for payment. In case there was an indebtedness, and it was not cancelled as above mentioned, the plaintiff is entitled to have execution for any balance due after the sale of the premises.
Ordered accordingly.