TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Phillips v. Eiland

Susan R. Phillips v. W. T. Eiland

Phillips v. Eiland, 52 Miss. 721 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1876
Judges
Chalmees
Citations
52 Miss. 721
Syllabus
1. MORTGAGE: Foreclosure. Receiver. A mortgagee who files a bill to foreclose, and prays for a receiver of rents pen-dente lite, is entitled to the receiver when the mortgaged property is insufficient to pay the debt and the mortgagor is insolvent. The principle is the same where the vendor of lands by title bond files his bill for specific performance.
Summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of JSToxubee County. Hon. J. J. DeNNis, Chancellor. The bill alleges that Mrs. Phillips sold the land to Eiland for part cash, and his note on long time for the residue. The note matured, default was made, a deed was tendered, and payment refused. The bill seeks a specific performance; alleges that the land is insufficient to pay the debt, and that the vendee is personally insolvent, and prays for a receiver to take and receive the rents and profits pendente lite. The complainant moved the court for the appointment of a receiver, made the proof to sustain the bill, and the court overruled the motion. The complainant appealed, and assigns for error the overruling of the motion. Filed a brief and written argument, citing 2 Story on Eq., §§ 829, 831 ; Dauiell’s Ch. Pr., 1733, 1734; 5 Paige, Ch., 39-42 ; 43 Miss., 526 ; 46 ib., 120 ; 11 Paige, Ch., 437 ; 48 Miss., 372; 4 S. & M., 294. [Reporters find no brief on file for appellees.]

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

Opinion of the Court — Chalmees

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

Chalmees, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It has been repeatedly held that a mortgagee who files his bill for a foreclosure, accompanied by a prayer for the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits pendente lite, is entitled to have such appointment made where he shows that the mortgaged property is insufficient to pay the debt and the mortgagor is personally insolvent.

We see no reason why the principle should not be the same, under a similar showing, where a vendor of land by title bond files his bill for specific performance. In such case the legal title is retained for the protection of the unpaid purchase money, and it has been likened to the execution of a deed and the taking of a mortgage back. Turner v. Hicks, 4 S. & M., 294 .

The showing, in the case at bar was abundant, and the receiver should have been appointed.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1880–1881: 11896–1897: 11906–1907: 118802026peak 1880 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schreiber v. Carey4 N.W. 124 (Wis. 1880)
  2. Moncrieff v. Hare38 Colo. 221 (1906)
  3. Pearson v. Kendrick74 Miss. 235 (1896)

Most recent

  1. Moncrieff v. Hare38 Colo. 221 (1906)
  2. Pearson v. Kendrick74 Miss. 235 (1896)
  3. Schreiber v. Carey4 N.W. 124 (Wis. 1880)

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