Corbett v. Waterman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Dubuque District Court. On the 1st of November, 1856, Waterman and wife made their mortgage to secure to complainant two notes of even date for $1037,50 each, due in six and twelve months. The note first due was paid. On the 14th of April 1857, Waterman sold to Hopkins the mortgaged premises. The deed to Hopkins refers to the mortgage and reeites that Hoplcins is to pay said notes.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dubuque District Court. On the 1st of November, 1856, Waterman and wife made their mortgage to secure to complainant two notes of even date for $1037,50 each, due in six and twelve months. The note first due was paid. On the 14th of April 1857, Waterman sold to Hopkins the mortgaged premises. The deed to Hopkins refers to the mortgage and reeites that Hoplcins is to pay said notes. The consideration mentioned in this deed is $3070, and on-the same day Hopkins executed to Waterman a mortgage on the same premises to secure the sum of $891,25, due one year from said date. On the 2d…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
Where the purchaser of mortgaged premises assumes in' the deed, or covenants to pay the mortgage, (and especially if the amount is deducted from the price,) such purchaser is liable to pay the amount of it to the grantor as part of the price, and as between them the mortgagor becomes a surety in respect to the mortgage, and as between them the vendee makes the debt his own. (1 Hill. Mortg. 288 section 59.)
The correctness of this rule is conceded by both parties in this controversy, but it is claimed by appellant, that while as between the vendor and purchaser, such vendor is a surety , the…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Locke v. HomerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Crawford v. EdwardsMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- George v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
- Malanaphy v. Fuller & Johnson Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Beeson v. GreenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.