Bank of Washington v. Hupp
Supreme Court of Virginia
This is the sequel of the case of the Bank of Washington v. Arthur & als. 3 Gratt. 173. When the cause went back to the Circuit court, Hupp and Machir, in November 1846, filed an amended bill, in which they that Steen bergen did not pay the debts of -Arthur to the amount he had undertaken to pay, and that he retained in his hands the sum of ten thousand dollars to meet the balance that was due on a deed of trust previously given by Arthur to secure a large debt due to the…
Read the full summary
This is the sequel of the case of the Bank of Washington v. Arthur & als. 3 Gratt. 173. When the cause went back to the Circuit court, Hupp and Machir, in November 1846, filed an amended bill, in which they that Steen bergen did not pay the debts of -Arthur to the amount he had undertaken to pay, and that he retained in his hands the sum of ten thousand dollars to meet the balance that was due on a deed of trust previously given by Arthur to secure a large debt due to the heirs of John Arthur, for the purchase money of the real estate embraced in the deed executed to secure him. That they…
1Opinion of the CourtLee, J.
In 1 Coote on Mortgages, p. 332, the general doctrine is stated, that a mortgagor in possession is not bound to account for rents and profits to the mortgagee. He refers to the case of Colman v. The Duke of St. Albans, 3 Ves. R. 25. That case simply establishes that where the debt is due, and the mortgagee does no act to appropriate the rents to his debt, but permits the mortgagor to remain in possession, and to receive the rents and apply them as he thinks proper, he cannot call the mortgagor to account for what he may so have received. But it is undoubtedly true, that the mortgage subject…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gay v. HancockSupreme Court of Virginia · 1822
- Farmers' Bank v. VanmeterCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1826
- Clarke v. CurtisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1844