110 Wash. 77 | Wash. | 1920
Frances M. Robinson executed and delivered her several promissory notes, aggregating
There is no dispute as to the facts. Appellants, noticing a provision of the present mortgage, namely, “that when $3,000 has been paid on the $21,500 debt, then the mortgagee herein will release this mortgage,” contend that, because $1,000 was paid" on the debt be
Further, appellants, citing Mascarel v. Raff our, 51 Cal. 242, and Dooly v. Eastman, 28 Wash. 564, 68 Pac. 1039, rely on tbe rule:
“If a mortgage is given on two pieces of land, and tbe mortgagee enforces it against and sells only one piece, be thereby waives tbe lien of tbe mortgage on the other piece; . . .” Mascarel v. Raff our, supra [syllabus].
The theory or reason upon which the rule rests is expressed by this court in the Dooly case, wherein, quoting from the Mascarel case, it was said:
“ ‘By the foreclosure the mortgage is merged in the judgment, and a new action could not be maintained to foreclose the mortgage as to the omitted lot.’ ”
But in each of those cases—indeed, in all such cases where the rule has been enforced—the situation was as stated in the Dooly case, to the effect that the mort
The properties are situated in different states, and the merger of the note or notes in a judgment does not extinguish the debt, but simply the form of the evidence of it, and the mortgage here continues to be an enforcible lien until that portion of the debt it was given to secure payment of is satisfied. Jones, Mortgages (7th ed.), § 936; 27 Cyc., pages 1409, 1410; 19 R. C. L., page 436, § 219, “Mortgages.”
Finding- no error in the case, the judgment is affirmed.
Holcomb, C. J., Parker, Main, and Mackintosh, JJ., concur.