Disbrow v. Jones
Michigan Court of Chancery
For a general statement of the facts in the first of these cases, see Disbroio vs. Jones and others, ante 48. In the case above referred to, Jones was proceeding to foreclose a mortgage by advertisement, under the statute, and Disbrow, claiming an undivided interest in the mortgaged premises as purchaser from one of the mortgagors, filed his bill and obtained an injunction restraining Jones from foreclosing the mortgage.
Read the full summary
For a general statement of the facts in the first of these cases, see Disbroio vs. Jones and others, ante 48. In the case above referred to, Jones was proceeding to foreclose a mortgage by advertisement, under the statute, and Disbrow, claiming an undivided interest in the mortgaged premises as purchaser from one of the mortgagors, filed his bill and obtained an injunction restraining Jones from foreclosing the mortgage. On coming in of the answers, the injunction was dissolved. Jones then discontinued the proceeding to foreclose by advertisement; and filed his bill December 6, 1837, to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The most important points in the first of the above cases, were decided upon the motion to dissolve the injunction. (See Disbrow vs. Jones, ante 48;) and it is not necessary again to examine and. decide the same points which were then discussed and decided-*'
Jones and Whiting, each, had an insurable interest in, the premises; they paid the premium on the.'insurance; they have sustained loss to the full amount of the insurance, and they are clearly entitled to the benefit of the policy. The agreement respecting the insurance, was between Jones and Whiting; Disbrow.was not a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Boyce's Executors v. GrundySupreme Court of the United States · 1830
3Cited by2 opinions
- McGehee v. MathisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
- State v. ShreveSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1816