|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST v. MACKALL. 521
whose debt ii secured by an instrument under seal, as by bond or
deed, the money so secured is a specialty debt In general where
a deed and agreement will support an action of debt, the creditor
is held to be a creditor by specialty; and there are a variety of
cases, where a creditor whose debt is secured by a covenant; al-
though for unliquidated damages, has been deemed to be a credi-
tor by specialty, (g) But in the case of principal and surety bound
by a bond, if the surety pays the debt he is considered only as a
simple contract creditor of the principal, (h) Where money is lent
upon a mortgage, and there is a personal covenant or stipulation,
in the mortgage deed, for payment, or any further security, as a
bond or contract under seal to pay the debt, it is one due by spe-
cialty; but, without any such covenant or further security, it is a
debt by simple contract only. The mortgaged estate being nothing
more than a pledge for the money borrowed; that is, for the perso-
nal debt; and as every loan of money creates a debt, whether there
be a covenant or bond for the payment of the money or not, if
there be no bond or personal covenant to pay the money it is merely
a simple contract debt, (i)
But it appears, that the deed by which this debt was secured
bears date on the 12th January, 1821; and that the claim was filed
on the 16th of November, 1830, within less than twelve years
after; therefore it cannot be affected by the statute of limitations,
which has been relied upon against it by the other creditors, as
regards the realty; in addition to which it has been established, as
against the personalty, by an absolute judgment against the admi-
nistrator. It is, however, clear, that as all the parties to this mort-
gage are before the court; and the mortgaged property is within
the jurisdiction of the court, it must be first applied, so far as it
will go, in satisfaction of this claim No. 5. And that the claim*
ant, if not thus fully satisfied, must be allowed to come in here, to
the amount of the balance, for a due proportion with the other cre-
(g) Henson v. Benson, 1 P. Will. 130; Freemoult v. Dedire, 1 P, Will. 429; Gif-
ford v. Manley, Cas. Tern. Tal. 109; Vernon v. Vawdry, 2 Atk. 119; Langley v.
Furlong, 1 Dick. 315; Baily v. Ekins, 2 Dick. 632; Cheveley v. Stone, 2 Dick.
782; Broome v. Monek, 10 Ves. 620; Anonymous, 18 Ves. 258; Musson v. May,
3 Ves, & B. 194; Mavor v. Davenport, 2 Cond. Chan. Rep. 395; Marriott v. Thomp-
son, Willis, 186. —(h) Jones v. Davids, 3 Cond. Chan. Rep. 660; Copis v. Middle-
ton, 11 Cond. Chan. Rep. 128. —(i) Howel v. Price, 1 P. Will. 291; King v. King,
3 P. Will. 358; Meynell v. Howard, Prec. Chan. 61; Cope v. Cope, 2 Salk, 449;
Galton v. Hancock, 2 Atk. 435; Waring v. Ward, 7 Ves. 336; Aldrick v. Cooper,
9 Ves. 394; Ex parte Digby, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 110.
66 v. 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
