Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. 515

Ord v. McKee

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

This was an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage made by defendants, Monroe and Felt, to McKee, to secure the payment of three promissory notes made by Monroe and Felt to James L. Ord, agent of William H. McKee, for the purchase price of lands owned by McKee. Ord held a power of attorney to sell all lands belonging to McKee situated in the Sacramento valley.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Accessory Contract”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2011

2 district · 5 state decisions

2018551860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Murray, C. J., concurred.

¶2The note sued on in this case was payable to the plaintiff, and although it described him as agent of McKee, this did not take away his right to sue in his own name at law. Then, to entitle him to go into equity and seek a foreclosure of the mortgage, depended simply upon the fact, whether he was really interested in the subject matter.

¶3It is not disputed, that by the contract with McKee, he was fully entitled to one-half of the note; nor can his right of action be defeated on the ground that the mortgage to secure the ■ payment of the note was made to McKee and not to himself. A mortgage is a mere incident to the debt which it secures, and follows the transfer of a note with the full effect of a regular assignment. Ord having the right to the note, had undoubtedly a right to foreclose the mortgage.

¶4The defense set up as to the agreement between McKee and Mun-roe, was not properly substantiated by the evidence. The Court pro perly refused the introduction of a copy of a mortgage, when the original was not accounted for; and so also with the letter of attorney from Walter to St. John; and thus, it does not appear by what authority Munroe paid to St. John the money alleged to have been paid on account of his agreement with McKee upon the mortgage of Walters. The only remaining question for consideration is, whether the Court below erred in rendering judgment, for the whole amount of the sum due on the notes, in favor of the complainant. From the allegations of his bill it is clear, that he is only entitled to one-half of the amount, and that is all he seeks to recover.

¶5If, under this judgment, he should collect the whole amount, he would be answerable to McKee for the other half, and this would be productive of another action. It is the duty of a Court of Equity, when all the parties to a controversy are before it, to adjust the rights of all, and leave nothing open for future litigation, if it can be helped.

¶6*517The decree must be here modified, so as to order a forelosure of the mortgage, and have the money paid over to a Master, to be appointed for the purpose, to distribute it equally between the complainant, Ord, and the defendant, McKee, and upon the report of the Master to the Court below, if the fund provided from the sale is insufficient to pay the amount found due, then the District Court will render judgment for one-half of the deficiency in favor of each, Ord and McKee, severally.

¶7Ordered accordingly.

/5/cal/515 · .json · Public domain