Lacoss v. Keegan
Lacoss and Others v. Keegan
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Perkins, J.
On the 2d day of March, 1849, Keegan filed his bill in the St. Joseph Circuit Court, against Lacoss and others, to foreclose a mortgage. The mortgage was executed to secure a debt payable in instalments, the first of which fell due on the 1st day of February, 1849; the second, the 1st day of February, 1850; and the third, the 1st day of February. 1851. Lacoss and wife, two of the defendants, answered, confessing the bill. Bowman and Russell, other two of the defendants, made default, and as to them the bill was taken as confessed. At the April term of the Court, 1849, it was referred to a master in chancery to report upon the condition of the mortgaged premises. He reported that they were not susceptible of division, and should all be sold together; and thereupon it was “ ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the Court that the said defendants do pay to the said complainant the said sum of 214 dollars [being the amount of all the instalments, due and not due, secured by the mortgage] within ninety days,” &c., or in default, &c., that the whole of the property be sold, &c.
This decree is erroneous. It should have been that the defendants pay the complainant 70 dollars and 62 cents, the amount of the instalment then due, and, in default of such payment, that the property be sold to make the whole debt, being 214 dollars. Suffern v. Johnson, 1 Page, 450. — R. S., p. 461, ss. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.
In the Ontario Bank v. Strong, 2 Page, 301, it is said the master’s report on the condition of the mortgaged property should state the reasons why the property is not susceptible of division, if he so report; and see Greenman v. Pattison, 8 Blackf. 465 .
Per Curiam.
The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.