395 Pa. 153 | Pa. | 1959
Opinion by
This appeal involves the question of whether defendant mortgagee is entitled to a premium, when the mortgage is paid off in the premium period as the result of a fire.
Margaret Chapman was the owner of property known as premises 801-09 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. On April 9, 1954, Margaret Chapman gave her bond and accompanying mortgage in the just principal sum of $300,000
Both the mortgage and the bond provided “. . . with further privilege to Obligor to pay balance of principal in full before maturity in accordance with terms set forth in Rider attached to Bond and Warrant, . . .”
The Rider provided “The Obligor shall have the right to prepay the entire principal debt at any monthly installment upon 30 days prior written notice, during the third, fourth and fifth years of the term of this obligation provided, there shall also be paid accrued interest to date of payment and in addition a sum equal to 2% of the amount of principal so paid.”
The question posed is a difficult one. A prepayment clause is ordinarily inserted to compensate a
Neither the bond nor the mortgage specifically or expressly provides for the exact situation which has arisen, namely, a prepayment of the entire principal loan Avith interest during the premium period, due not to a voluntary election of prepayment but to a fire. If
Judgment affirmed.
Tbe principal amount was reduced by payments to $274,-383.42.
AVhile evidence was presented by defendant that plaintiff was unwilling to agree to rebuild its building, the trial Judge made no finding of fact on this point, nor did he decide whether plaintiff would have had a right to a continuance of the mortgage loan if it did rebuild its building.