|
|
|
|
|
|
|
180 SALMON v. CLAGETT.
at the time of paying over the proceeds of sale to the creditor.
This is done from necessity, and as an unavoidable consequence
of the peculiar nature of the case, (t)
It is also well established, that if the mortgagor, who holds the
possession, commits waste; or, in any manner attempts to dimi-
nish the value of the property; or, where it consists of personalty,
is about to remove it beyond the reach of his creditor, so as to
render it unequal to the discharge of the debt, or to place it so as
not to be forthcoming for the satisfaction of the debt, he may be
restrained by injunction. And an injunction for such a purpose
may be obtained at any time before the debt becomes due; for,
otherwise, a fraudulent mortgagor might, at his pleasure, deprive
tile creditor of all benefit from his mortgage. Upon this ground
this injunction was granted and now reposes, (u)
It is clear, that this mortgage could not have been foreclosed at
the time the bill was filed; because the credit given had not then
expired; and, therefore, Salmon could not then have asked for
more than he has prayed for; that is, to have the property placed
under the protection of an injunction from this court. And relief
cannot now be extended to him beyond that of perpetuating the
injunction heretofore granted. In a case situated like this, the
plaintiff, before the debt became due, filed a bill praying for a sale
and an injunction to stay waste. The injunction was granted;
and, on the coming in of the answer, was, on a motion to dissolve,
continued to the final hearing. After the mortgage debt became
due the mortgagee filed another bill praying for a sale. To which
it was objected by the defendant in his answer, that there was
another suit then depending embracing the same subject. But I
considered the first as a mere injunction bill, on which there could
have been no decree for a sale, and as not, at all, inconsistent with
the second bill on which I deemed a sale accordingly, (w)
It was indispensably necessary, in this case, that the plaintiff
should establish his title as he has done; and also shew, that there
was some debt unsatisfied; for, if the mortgage had been found
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(O 2 Inst. 471; Gladwyn v. Hitchman, 2 Vern. 135; Stanhope v. Manners, 2
Eden, 107; Ex parte Fisher, 3 Mad. 160; Brinkerhoff v. Thallhimer, 2 John. C. C.
486; Marshall v. Thompson, 2 Mun. 412; Campbell v. Macomb, 4 John. C.C, 534 ;
Leveridge v. Forty, 1 Mau. & Sel. 706; Coates v. Hewit, 1 Wils. 80; Bonafous v.
Rybot, 3 Burr, 1370; Judd v. Evans, 6 T. R. 399; Bac. Abr. tit Debt, B; Ridgely
v. Lee, 3 H. & McH. 94; Sparks v. Garriques, 1 Bin. 152.—(u) Eden Inj. 119.—
(w) Murdock's case, 2 Bland, 461.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
