Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cary v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 30, 1932Published

1DissentRossman, J.

I dissent from the decision of the majority for many reasons. First, it is illogical to hold that section 6-509, Oregon Code 1930, permits only one foreclosure of the lien, and then grant the mortgagee a foreclosure in this suit after it had already availed itself of a foreclosure in an earlier suit. It is true that the first foreclosure was for a portion of the debt only, but if the statute authorizes only one foreclosure of the mortgage lien the mortgagee has exhausted its remedy, even though it did not pray in the first suit for a judgment for the full amount of the debt.

Next, I know of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Crouse v. HolmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Boyer v. ChandlerIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Miami Mortgage & Guaranty Co. v. DrawdySupreme Court of Florida · 1930
  4. Burroughs v. EllisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
  5. Hughes & McCart v. FrisbyIllinois Supreme Court · 1876

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API