Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MENDELL W. CRANE, trustee, vs. STILLMAN C. WHITE.

Mortgage, Real estate: foreclosure. Sale. Equity Jurisdiction, For an accounting. Where the published advertisement of a sale in foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate states that the terms and conditions of the sale will be announced at the time and place of the sale, and, at the sale and before the bidding, the auctioneer announces that the property will be "sold subject to interest," and the sale is conducted fairly and a price is obtained which is the reasonable value of the property under all the circumstances, the purchaser must be taken to have bought the property with an agreement on his part to pay the interest then due on the mortgage, so that the mortgagee, in accounting with the mortgagor or his successor in title for the proceeds of the sale, is not entitled to be credited with the amount due as interest on the mortgage at the time of the sale, although the mortgage states that out of the sum received at the sale the mortgagee may retain all sums then secured by the mortgage, "whether then or thereafter payable."

RUGG, C.J.

The plaintiff is the trustee in bankruptcy of the owner of the equity of redemption in two parcels of real estate upon which the defendant held mortgages, and which he foreclosed. One of the terms of each foreclosure sale was stated to be that the property would be sold subject among other claims to the unpaid interest, the amount of which was announced. The property was purchased by the defendant, whose bid slightly exceeded the aggregate of the face of the mortgage and expenses and interest. The question is whether in this suit for an accounting the defendant is entitled to retain the unpaid interest out of the proceeds of the sale, or whether the plaintiff is entitled to the excess above the face of the mortgage and the expenses of foreclosure.

It must be assumed in the absence of any finding to the contrary that the foreclosure sale was conducted fairly and that the price bid was the reasonable value of the property under all the conditions. The announcement that the purchaser must take the property subject to a stated amount of unpaid interest must be presumed to have produced its natural effect upon prospective bidders and the price at which finally it was struck off may be assumed to have been the fair price. Taken according to its terms that price meant that the purchaser was willing to give it and in addition pay the interest up to the amount stated, as well as the taxes and the other claims announced at the sale. The defendant having become the purchaser and being bound to exercise the utmost good faith in making the foreclosure sale, cannot with justice be heard to say that the terms of the sale did not mean what they were announced to be. It cannot be presumed in his favor under these circumstances that others present would not have been bidders upon a literal interpretation of the publicly stated terms of sale, and that therefore he ought not to be held to them. The fair implication from all the facts is that he has become the owner of real estate fairly worth the sum stated as the interest, subject to which the sale was made, more than the face of the mortgage and expenses.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CRANE v. WHITE
(Sep 12, 1913)