Bartlett v. Eddy

<p>1. Assignments: choses in action: delivery: notice: common law: statute. At common law the assignment of ehoses in action was not recognized, and was only vitalized By equity and through the use of the assignor’s name, and the title thereto was not perfected as against the debtor till notice of the assignment to him, hut, under the statute, the assignment and delivery of bonds and notes immediately vests the legal title in the assignee without notice, and he may sue in his own name, while in the ease of such choses in action as are not capable of manual delivery notice seems necessary to complete the title. (Missouri statutes and eases reviewed.)</p> <p>2. -: discharge by assignor: defense. The present statute puts it out of the power of the assignor to release a note after he has assigned it, but reserves to the payor (and to him alone) the defense which accrued to him before notice of the assignment. Gill, J., dissenting, holds that in this case, though there was an assignment as between the assignor and assignee, yet it was not effective as against the debtor without notice.</p> <p>3. -: payment by maker: mortgage. If the payor, without notice of the assignments, pays the sum due on the note to the assignor, such payment, while it is not properly speaking a payment of the note, will operate as a discharge of, or a defense for, the payor; but will not discharge the lien of a mortgage on lands in the hands of a third party who is not connected with the mortgage. [Gill, J., dissenting.]</p> <p>4. -: -:-. Payment to an assignor after an assignment of anon-negotiable note amounts to nothing more than a defense to the payor alone, and'to no one else save those who by their relation to the payor could compel him to make good their loss.</p> <p>5. -: registry statute. The registry statute does not require the assignment of a note and mortgage to be recorded, nor require the assignee to notify the successive grantees of the assignor of the. assignment.</p> <p>6. -: CONVEYANCE OF MORTGAGE TO MORTGAGOR NO MERGER. Where a mortgagee after the assignment of the note to a third party takes a conveyance of the mortgaged premises to himself, equity will not permit such conveyance to operate as a merger of the two estates in him.</p> <p>7. Mortgages: release by mortgagee. The fact that a mortgagee, after assignment of the mortgaged debt, enters a satisfaction of the mortgage on the margin of the record cannot affect the rights of his assignee, or his grantees after his subsequent acquisition of the mort- . gaged premises.</p> <p>8. Assignment: conveyance to mortgagee: estoppel. Smith, P. J., concurring: “Where a mortgagee, after his assignment of the note, takes a quitclaim deed to the mortgaged premises in satisfaction of the note, he is estopped as against his assignee to deny the mortgage lien on the premises, and so are his grantees. Gill, J., dissenting, holds that such transaction bars the foreclosure of the mortgage, the debt and the mortgage being for this purpose inseparable, and when the note is paid the mortgage expires. •</p> <p>9. -: NOTICE: PAYMENT TO ASSIGNOR: EFFECT ON MORTGAGE. Gill, J., farther dissenting: Where the assignee of a non-negotiahle note secured hy a mortgage fails to give notice. of the assignment to the payor, the latter is justified in regarding the, assignor still the ■owner or the agent of the owner to receive payment; and payment to ■the assignor is a complete and entire satisfaction of the debt, and the mortgage security on the land is extinguished with the debt (doubting Fice v. McFarland, 34 Mo. App. 404); nor is this position impaired by the rule that, though an action on the debt be barred by the statute of limitations, yet a suit on mortgage may be maintained.</p>