21 F. Cas. 149 | S.D.N.Y. | 1868
It is unquestionable that, under section 9 of the judiciary act of September 24th, 17S9 (1 Stat. 76), the courts of the states have no jurisdiction of a suit against a foreign consul. Davis v. Packard, 7 Pet. [32 U. S.] 276. There is no objection, however, to the bringing of a suit by a consul in a state court. Although, by the constitution (article 3, § 2), the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases affecting consuls, yet congress has not seen proper to make the jurisdiction of suits brought by consuls exclusive in the courts of the United States. The state court of Virginia had, therefore, undoubted jurisdiction of the suit brought by the defendant. But it had no jurisdiction of the suit brought by the plaintiff, if that suit was an original suit. The plaintiff claims that that suit was not an original suit, but was a cross-suit, and was a part of the suit brought by the defendant, and that, therefore, the court bad jurisdiction to make the decree in it
I think that it appears, by the replication, that the suit brought by the plaintiff, in the state court, was an original suit. The replication does not state that the bill filed by the plaintiff was a cross-bill, but states that it was a bill in the nature of a cross-bill. The replication does not show why the plaintiff was made a party to the suit brought by the defendant, or what relief, if any, was prayed, in that suit, against the plaintiff. It merely states, that a supplemental bill was filed by the defendant, setting forth the execution and delivery of the mortgage, and that the whole of the principal and a large amount of interest was due thereon, and praying that the plaintiff might be made a party to the suit. It is apparent, that, on a bill of this character, no decree could have been made against the defendant, foreclosing his equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises. The bill filed by the plaintiff is stated, in the replication, to have been filed for the purpose of selling the mortgaged premises, in case they were not redeemed by the defendant, and of applying the proceeds toward the debt due to the plaintiff. The prayer, of the original bill filed by the defendant is stated, in the, replication, to have been merely that the premises should be sold. . That the bill filed by the plaintiff was a bill to foreclose the equity of redemption of the defendant in the mortgaged premises, is shown by the averment, in the replication, that the decree made by the court was, that, unless the defendant should, by a certain day, pay to the plaintiff a sum certain, the defendant should be barred from all equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises, and they should be sold at auction. It is quite clear, I think, that the bill filed by the plaintiff was not a cross-bill, but was an original bill for relief. Story, Eq. PI. § 400, note 4. Therefore, if the defendant was, at the time, a foreign consul, the court had no jurisdiction of the suit, and no jurisdiction to make the decree in question, so far as that decree barred the defendant’s equity of redemption. As the replication states the decree, it barred such equity, unless the defendant should pay to the plaintiff a certain sum by a certain day, and, when such equity should be barred, then the premises should be sold.
The demurrer to the first rejoinder is, therefore, overruled.
The second rejoinder is one which sets forth that the bill filed by the plaintiff in the state court was not a cross-bill. This rejoinder concludes to the country. To this second rejoinder the plaintiff demurs, and assigns, as one cause of demurrer, that the rejoinder ought not to have concluded to the country, and does not put in issue any matter of fact alleged in the replication. This is true. The replication avers that the bill filed by the plaintiff was in the nature of a cross-bill. The rejoinder avers that it was not a cross-bill.
The demurrer to the second rejoinder is, therefore, allowed.
The plaintiff insists, however, that, although both of the rejoinders may be good, the plea in question is bad; and that, as the defendant committed the first fault, by pleading the plea out of which the rejoinders grew, judgment must be rendered against the defendant on both of the demurrers. I think it very clear that the plea is bad. It avers that the mortgage contained a condition that, if the debt were not paid, the plaintiff might enter into the lands and sell them, and pay his debt out of the proceeds; that, after the debt became due, he entered into and took possession, in his own right, of the lands, they exceeding in value the amount of the debt, to sell and dispose of the same, but that, instead of doing so. he had continued in possession, claiming to be the absolute owner, and receiving the rents; and that thereby the debt is paid. A foreclosure of'a mortgage on land, without a sale of the land, that is, what is called a strict foreclosure, is an extinguishment of the debt, provided the premises are of sufficient value to pay the debt. But this doctrine only applies to a case of strict foreclosure. It does not apply to a case where the mortgagee, instead of entering into possession of the premises by way of strict foreclosure. either on a decree of strict foreclosure, or by virtue of a power in the mortgage to that effect, enters for the purpose of sale. On a strict foreclosure, the mortgagee must credit the value of the premises on the debt, if they are of no greater value than the amount of the debt, but, if they are of greater value than the amount of the debt, the mortgagee is under no obligation to refund the overplus to the mortgagor. On a sale under a decree of foreclosure and sale, the debt is extinguished only up to the amount produced by the sale, and the balance may be recovered on the bond, the surplus, if any there be, on the sale, belonging to the mortgagor. These principles are fully settled in Spencer v. Harford, 4 Wend. 381, and Morgan v. Plumb, 9 Wend. 287. Although the plea in this case avers that the value of the premises was greater than the amount of the debt, yet it does not show that the mortgagee took possession of the premises by way of strict foreclosure, either under a decree or under the mortgage. It sets up no decree of any kind, but merely an entry by the plaintiff under the mortgage. It avers, that the power in the mortgage was, that the plaintiff might, on default in the payment of the debt, enter into and take possession of the lands, and sell them, and retain the debt out of the avails, paying the overplus, if any, to the defendant; and that, after the debt became due, the plaintiff entered into and took possession, in his own right, of the lands, to sell them, and that he might have sold them, and have paid the debt from the proceeds, because the lands exceeded in value the amount of the debt, but that, instead of selling them, he has remained in possession, claiming to be the owner of them, and receiving the rents and profits. The plea sets up nothing which shows that the defendant’s equity of redemption in the lands is in any way barred, or foreclosed, or affected. He could, for aught that is shown by the plea, file a bill to redeem the mortgage. If the plaintiff should, in defence, set up the facts which are averred in this plea, those facts would be no defence to the bill. They are, therefore, no defence to this suit. The plaintiff has a right, notwithstanding the facts set up in the plea, and although he may have entered into and retained possession of the lands, under the circumstances and for the purpose set forth in the plea, to pursue any concurrent remedy which he has, to recover the debt from the defendant, subject, of course, to the right of the defendant to redeem the mortgage, and to compel the plaintiff to sell the lands and apply the proceeds on the debt. The defendant has no right to complain. He could have paid his debt. He gave to the plaintiff the right to enter for security, subject to the obligation to sell. He can enforce that obligation. But he cannot claim, as he does in this plea, that such entry paid the debt, because the lands were of more value than the debt. The plea is, therefore, bad in substance, and, it being so, the plaintiff did not cure the defect by replying to the plea, and there must be judgment for the plaintiff. Wyman v. Mitchell. 1 Cow. 316, 322; Griswold v. National Ins. Co., 3 Cow. 96, 119.
