Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ind. 45

Smart v. McKay

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1861

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1861-05-27

<p>An action of foreclosure will lie upon a mortgage for interest due upon the notes secured thereby, though no part of the principal is due.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1903

1 state decisions

Relies on Hunt v. Harding

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-05-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Suit to foreclose a mortgage, on default of payment of interest. Demurrer to the complaint overruled. Judgment of foreclosure. One year’s interest, but no principal was due. The mortgage states that it is given “ to secure the payment, when they severally become due, of- seven promissory notes executed by said Alfred Smart, and payable to the order of said Matilda Smart, each for the sum of $100, and interest payable annually, and bearing even date herewith ; the first payable in two years,” &c.

¶2The code provides, 2 K. S., § 637, p. 176, that “whenever a complaint is filed for the foreclosure of a mortgage, upon which there shall be due any interest, or installment of the principal,” &c. This recognizes the right to foreclose for interest, and we think, on failure to pay interest due, as in this mortgage, a default has occurred. See Hunt v. Harding, 11 Ind. 245.

¶3The judgment is affirmed, with 1 per cent, damages and costs.

/16/ind/45 · .json · Public domain