TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Youmans v. Loxley

Mary J. Youmans v. Emeline Loxley and Henry M. Youmans

Youmans v. Loxley, 22 N.W. 282 (Mich. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 28, 1885
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
22 N.W. 28256 Mich. 1971885 Mich. LEXIS 639
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Mortgage — Rights of execution purchaser — Foreclosure against husband. 1. An execution purchaser who buys land subject to a mortgage can have no equities against the mortgage, and it does not concern him how the owner disposes of it. % A married woman can acquire a mortgage against her husband and on his land as freelv as she can take any other existing security; and as it is not her obligation she can foreclose it even though she joined iu it to release her right of dower.
Summary
Appeal from Saginaw. (Gage, J.) Foreclosure bill. Complainant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Campbell, J.

Defendant Loxley is purchaser under an execution sale against defendant Henry M. Youmans of certain land which when levied on was subject to a mortgage to Edwin Brown who is father of complainant, she being wife of defendant Henry. In January 1882 Brown executed a, formal assignment of this mortgage by way of gift to complainant who now seeks to foreclose it. The only defense set up is that on August 23, 1880, being more than a year after the date of the execution sale (which was June 17, 1879) Youmans and wife gave Brown a deed pnrporting to-be in satisfaction of the mortgage, thereby as defendant insists extinguishing it.

When this deed was made, Youmans had no further interest to convey, as his time for redemption. had expired, and none but judgment creditors could take up the property after a year from the sale. How. Stat. §§ 6120-6126. It’ is also-shown conclusively that Brown never accepted the deed, which therefore could have no bearing on the mortgage.

Defendant Loxley, having purchased the land subject to the Brown mortgage can have no equities against it, arid lias no concern with any disposition which Brown saw fit to make of it. And Mrs. Youmans, as a _ married woman, could acquire a mortgage on her husband’s lands and against him, just as freely as she could buy or take any other secrrrity already existing. And the fact that she had joined in the mortgage to release her dower could not affect her right to hold it, as it was not her own obligation. She is entitled to a decree of foreclosure.

The decree below must be reversed and a decree granted to complainant for foreclosure in the usual form, with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1887: 11917: 118872026peak 1887 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pellston Planing Mill & Lumber Co. v. Van Wormer165 N.W. 724 (Mich. 1917)
  2. Lyon v. Zimmer30 F. 401 (1887)

Most recent

  1. Pellston Planing Mill & Lumber Co. v. Van Wormer165 N.W. 724 (Mich. 1917)
  2. Lyon v. Zimmer30 F. 401 (1887)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list