Court Opinion

ID: 5549491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-10 21:30:11.628996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:01.678864
License: Public Domain

The Vice-Chancellor :
It appears to me that if Mr. *677Griffin had paid the whole of the ninth and tenth instalments which his mortgage was intended to secure, there would be no doubt of his right to reimbursement out of the mortgaged premises for those instalments as a prior claim to the Miller mortgage now held by Mr. Lawrence, although those instalments might not have been paid until after the Miller mortgage was given and recorded. And if Mr. Griffin would have had that right, I do not see why, in equity, Mr. Ogilvie or any other person advancing those same sums and for the same purposes as Mr. Griffin had agreed to do may not be allowed to claim the benefit of the mortgage in his stead.
Now, it appears that the three drafts of the seventh of May and tenth of June one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, which Mr, Ogilvie now holds and which he has given the money for, were drawn specifically for the ninth and tenth instalments, under the Griffin contract, and it appears clearly, from the testimony, that the amounts of those drafts were expended in and upon the buildings. Mr. Ogilvie is, consequently, entitled to stand in the place of Francis Griffin and to be subrogated to all his rights as mortgagee, had he actually furnished these monies. In my opinion, the master erred in excluding Ogilvie’s claim for the amount of the money due to him on the drafts. The exception taken by the latter to the master’s report must, therefore, be allowed ; and this matter has to be referred back to the master to compute the amount due to Ogilvie on the three drafts and with directions to report the same as a lien prior in equity to the mortgage held by the defendant Lawrence.