Hull v. Young

Citations

• 29 S.C. 64

Syllabus

<p>1. A complaint for foreclosure in no way connected one of the defendants with the mortgaged premises or the debt secured, but in this defendant’s answer she alleged that she was now the owner of the mortgaged land. After reference to the master and his report, this defendant, at the trial on Circuit, interposed orally a demurrer, that as to her the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Held, that the demurrer should have been sustained, and that this objection to the complaint was not cured by the allegations of the answer, nor was it taken too late.</p> <p>2. But as in the order overruling the demurrer plaintiff was properly permitted to amend his complaint by making an allegation of this defendant’s purchase and possession, the Circuit Judge’s error as to the de-murrer did not practically affect the result, and therefore his order should not be reversed.</p> <p>3. Three tracts of land included in one mortgage were sold by the sheriff under junior executions on the same day, and were purchased by A. B, and C respectively. Afterwards A purchased the mortgage and brought action of foreclosure against B. Held, that the mortgage was extinguished only to the extent of the proportion in value that the land purcliased by A bore to the three traots, and that B’s tract was still liable for the debt in a like relative proportion.</p> <p>4. Bnt B could not be held liable for any deficiency remaining after the sale of the tract of land purchased by her.</p> <p>5. In action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, no personal judgment for the debt or any part thereof can be rendered against the mortgagor on his bond until after sale, and then only for the deficiency reported to be unpaid.</p>