Court Opinion

ID: 9663831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:52:39.325334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:57.967915
License: Public Domain

*728Currie, C. J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The instant mortgage contained a clause that it was security for the $10,600 mortgage note “and also such further sums of money which may be or become owing by the parties of the first part [the Capocasas], or any or either of them, to the party of the second part [the bank], its successors or assigns, at any time hereafter and prior to the release in writing of this mortgage by the party of the second part. . . .”
I am unable to concur in the legal wizardry by which this clause can be interpreted to mean, in case of a future indebtedness by either mortgagor to the bank, that the mortgage against the mortgaged premises is not security for such indebtedness. The desire to accomplish an equitable result is understandable, but I disapprove of the court modifying and remaking the contract.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Hallows joins in this dissent.