Skip to main content
· 5/13/1891

Ritchie v. Judd

Citations

  • 137 Ill. 453
  • 27 N.E. 682

Syllabus

<p>1. Mortgage—sale thereunder—notice to mortgagor—sufficiency of ■notice. A note secured by mortgage on lots was put in the hands of real estate brokers for collection, and the mortgagor also employed them to sell the lots. A private sale was made, which fell through, for the reason the title did not appear good, whereupon the mortgagor ceased to rely on the brokers and looked elsewhere for advice. The brokers then had the property sold under the power of sale in the mortgage, without personal notice to the mortgagor, and it was bought by one having no privity or connection with the brokers: Held, that the brokers were not guilty of a betrayal of trust.</p> <p>2. The failure to give the mortgagor personal notice of a sale under a power in a mortgage will not invalidate the sale, where the purchaser has no notice that the mortgagee purposely concealed the sale from the mortgagor. The parties may stipulate for personal notice to the mortgagor, of the time and place of the sale, but if they do not, the failure to give such notice will not affect the power to sell.</p> <p>3. Where the purchaser at a sale under a power in a mortgage is neither party nor privy to any arrangement to prevent the mortgagor from having notice of the sale, it will be sufficient if all the notice of the sale was given which the mortgage requires.</p> <p>4. Same—second sale—validity thereof. Where a sale is made under a power in a mortgage, upon due and proper notice, the power will be exhausted, and a second sale under the fear of some defect in the first will be a nullity, and the purchaser under both sales will not be es-topped from relying upon the validity of the first salé.</p> <p>5. A sale under a power in a mortgage will not be set aside, on the bill of the mortgagor, from the fact that the sale was twice advertised, when the second notice was made necessary to obviate a defect in the first, and the sale was made under the last notice, and no injury was •shown to have resulted from havi

Judges: Scholfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.