McClellan v. Crook

Upon a former appeal in this case, this court passed a decree reversing the decree of the chancellor, and remanding the cause to the court of chancery, with directions to sell the mortgaged premises, according to the usual course in such cases, unless the appellant should pay into that court the sum ascertained, by an audit directed to be made in this court, to be due the appellee. Held : That this was a final decree, disposing of the entire subject in controversy upon the pleadings and proofs exhibited, and the only authority remaining to tile chancellor over the subject was, to carry that decree into execution. He was necessarily confined to the limits prescribed to him, whatever further or ulterior equity might have arisen in favor of the appellant, after the passing of the original decree by the chancellor. This decree has become the law of the case, and the chancellor cannot other, wise deal with the matters adjudicated by it, than in the form it proscribes. Where evidence appears upon the record of a prospective or continuing equity, of the same character as that passed upon, this court will limit itself to an exposition of the principles involved, and remand the cause, to have the account stated in chancery within those principles; but if no such evidence appears, it will pass a definitive and final decree.

Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The original bill in this cause, was filed on the 21st of July, 1843, by William Crook, the present appellee, against MeClellan, the appellant, and one Sophia Ducatel, administratix of Alexis A. Delmas, deceased, for the sale of certain real estate, in the city of Baltimore, mortgaged by said Delmas, in his life time, to one Elizabeth Taggart, who afterwards assigned the mortgage debt to the complainant. The bill states, that the mortgage was executed on the 19th of November 1836, to secure an indebtedness of $2000, owing by Delmas, the mortgagor, to the mortgagee. That Delmas afterwards, executed a second mortgage of the same property to Israel Griffith, of the city of Baltimore, and shortly thereafter died, leaving the whole debt to said Taggart unpaid, and about one-third of the debt due said Griffith. also unpaid. That afterwards, on the 28th of May 1839, the complainant paid said Taggart the whole amount of her mortgage debt, and on the 12th of February 1S40, received from her an assignment, duly executed, of said mortgage, and her interest therein. That after this assignment, viz., on the 17th of December 1842, Griffith, the junior mortgagee, upon a bill to which the complainant was not made a party, obtained a decree from Baltimore county court, as a court of equity, for the sale of the mortgaged premises, for the payment of the balance due on his mortgage claim. That under this decree, the property was sold to William McClellan, (the appellant,) for the sum of $1200, subject to the mortgage assigned to the complainant, of the existence of which the trustee distinctly informed McClellan, before and at the time of sale. The bill then prays for a sale of the mortgaged premises to satisfy the mortgage debt so assigned to the complainant, with interest, and for general relief. The answer of McClellan admits his purchase of the property under the decree of Baltimore comity court, and also the execution of the mortgage to Elizabeth Taggart, but insists that after the death of said Delmas, one Victor Vallette purchased the equity of redemption in said property, and paid said Elizabeth her mortgage claim, and thereby said property became and continues wholly acquitted therefrom. The answer farther insists, that if said Crook should be considered lawfully entitled to proceed against said property in the hands of respondent for payment of said mortgage debt, the said claim must be abated by allowance against said Crook for the rents of said property reasonably chargable against said Crook, for and by reason of his use and occupation of said property for several years past, and ever since the death of said Delmas. And the defendant accordingly charges, that said Crook has possessed and enjoyed, without paying rent therefor to any one, the said property for the period aforesaid. The answer of ¿Sophia Ducalel, simply denies that the said Delmas, to her knowledge, left any personal property whatever, or that any amount of money has come to her hands as administratrix of the deceased. A commission was then issued under which testimony was taken, which it is not necessary to state. The auditor on the I3th of November 1844, reported two accounts, in one of which, (account A,) made under the instruction of the complainant’s solicitor, he charged interest on the mortgage claim from the 19th of May 1839, to the date of the report, and credited the rent of the mortgaged property at $400 per annum,, from the 25th of January 1843, the day when it was sold under the decree of Baltimore county court; leaving due the sum of $1938, with interest from the date of the report. In account B, made to meet the views of the defendant, the mortgaged estate was credited with rent from the 28th of May 1839, when the complainant became the assignee of the claim. On the 1.9th of the same month the auditor, at the instance of the complainant, stated another account (C,) wherein he charged the mortgaged estate with certain taxes and ground rents paid by the complainant, so that by this account there was due the complainant, the sum of $2129;80, with interest from the 13th of November 1844. Exceptions were taken to these accounts by both parties, and the chancellor, (Bland,) on thelGth of December 1844, ratified and confirmed the auditor’s report of the 19th of November, and the account C, accompanying the same, and decreed the property to be sold for the payment of the sum ascertained by that account to be due the complainant. From this decree the defendant, McClellan, appealed, and this court, at June term 1846, ordered and directed an audit to be made in this court in conformity with its views by a special auditor appointed for the purpose, who accordingly reported account (B,) in which interest was charged upon the mortgage debt, yearly, and rent credited yearly, from the 14th of May 1839, to the 19th of November 1844, the date of the auditor’s report; which was affirmed by the chancellor. The appellate court then, on the 26th of June 1846, passed a decree,, reversing, with costs, the decree of the chancellor of the 16th of December 1844, and ratified and confirmed account B, stated by the special auditor under its direction, “and for the purpose of enforcing the payment of the claims therein mentioned, it is hereby further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the said cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the court of chancery, and that unless the said William Me Clellan, the appellant, shall pay into the said court the sum of $485.49, with interest on the sum of $379.12, from the 19th of November 1844, until so brought into the said court of chancery, on or before the first day of April next, that then the said mortgaged premises be sold for the payment of the said sum and interest, under the orders and decrees of the said court of chancery, according to the usual course of the said court in such cases; and that Samuel H. Taggart and St. George W. Teaekle, be, and are hereby appointed trustees to make said sale, they first giving bond to the satisfaction and approval of the chancellor, for the due execution of the trust reposed in them by this decree, and make report of such sales as usual in such cases, according to the course of the court of chancery.” The cause having been thus sent back under this decree to the court of chancery, the defendant, on the 27th of February 1847, filed his petition in the cause, alleging, that the plaintiff Crook, has, ever since the period to which the audit in this court is carried, (19th of November 1844,) occupied said mortgaged property without paying any rent to your petitioner, or in any wise accounting therefor to him, or being entitled to any abatement whatsoever for any ground-rent charges, or otherwise, and lías refused to leave the premises although duly warned to do so, whereby, for a long portion of the time elapsed since the said period of the said audit, said Crook, (as properly notified by your petitioner,) has become answerable for double rent, which your petitioner accordingly claims. Your petitioner exhibits an account of rents due from said Crook, whereby it appears that no part of the mortgage claim remains due to him; but on the contrary said Crook owes your petitioner the sum of $480.67, as of the 14th of February 1847. The petitioner then insists that the property is not liable to be sold, and prays that the sale may be stopped, and'the cause again referred to the auditor. Upon this petition the chancellor, (Johnson,) on the 31st of March 1847, after stating thatthe decree of the Court of Appeals had been' filed in the cause, proceeds: “This appears to be a final decree, and simply remands the cause to'this court, for the purpose of carrying the said decree into execution, and this, consequently, is the only authority which the chancellor has over the subject. It is therefore ordered that the within petition be dismissed; but, under the circumstances of the case, it is dismissed without costs.” From this decree the petitioner, McClellan appealed, to this court.