Court Opinion

ID: 9808168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:29:29.099845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:38.462005
License: Public Domain

Douglas, I.,
concurring. While concurring generally in tbe opinion, I can not agree with that part of it which bolds that tbe so-called damages embraced in tbe ninth issue did not arise out of the same cause of action, but out of an alleged wrongful procedure in tbe action. Whatever terms may have been used by tbe parties, tbe sum found due is, in fact, not damages arising out of a wrongful act, but tbe net value of tbe use of tbe property in tbe plaintiff’s possession. It is well settled that while a mortgagee may, in tbe absence of any stipulation to the contrary, take possession of mortgaged property, be can not sell such property before default. If be sees fit to take tbe property before tbe debt is due, be must aecount'to tbe mortgagor for the value of any reasonable use *72to wbicb tbe property is or could bave been put. Tbe reason of tbe rule is thus given in Jackson v. Hall, 84 N. C., 489: “While tbe defendant invaded no .right of the mortgagor in taking and keeping possession until tbe, day of default, whether the property was or was not in danger of being lost or injured, yet be was, meanwhile, acting as trustee, bound to exercise that diligence and care expected of one in tbe preservation and management of bis own property, and to account not only for profits actually received, but for the value of any reasonable and prudent use to which it could bave been put without detriment to tbe property itself, since be has, as the -verdict finds, needlessly deprived the plaintiff of its use.” Such a claim is rather in tbe nature of recoupment, and being “connected with tbe subject of tbe action,” clearly comes under the first class of counter-claims mentioned in section 244 of The Code. Electric Co. v. Williams, 123 N. C., 51. If this were a suit for tbe foreclosure of tbe mortgage, which it appears to have been considered through every stage of its proceeding, up to the judgment, I do not see why the defendant could not maintain bis counter-claim for tbe reasonable hire of tbe property taken before default.