This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
Fed. Cas. No. 14,120; Kuhnert v. Conrad, 6 N. D. 215, 69 N. W. 185.
68. Clark v. Reyburn, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 318, 19 L. Ed. 354; Noyes v. Hall, 97 U. S. 34, 24 L. Ed. 909; Roberts v. Atlanta Cemetery Ass'n, 146 Ga. 490, 91 S. E. 675; Rodman v. Quick, 211 111. 546, 71 N. E. 1087; Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 491; Lockman v. Reilly, 95 N. Y. 64; Landon v. Townshend, 112 N. Y. 93, 8 Am. St. Rep. 712, 19 N. E. 424; Mav-rich v. Grier, 3 Nev. 52, 93 Am. Dec. 373; Union Bank v. Bell, 14 Ohio St. 200. Contra, McNutt v. Nuevo Land Co., 167 Cal. 459, 140 Pac. 6.
69. Dundee Naval Stoves Co. v. McDowell, - Fla. -, 61 So. 108; Richardson v. Hadsall, 106 111. 476; Hirsch v. Livingston, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 9; Welsh v. Schoen, 59 Hun (N.Y.) 356, 13 N. Y. Supp. 71; tion70 he cannot well be deprived of this right by a proceeding to which he is not a party. And so far as he has, in any state, before the foreclosure decree, the right of possession as against the mortgagee, he cannot well be deprived of this right by such a proceeding. There is, on principle, no distinction in this regard between the rights of one to whom the mortgagor transfers the land in fee simple and the rights of one to whom he transfers the land for years, whether for one or a thousand years. Occasional decisions to the effect that a foreclosure decree is conclusive as against a tenant for years, although he is not a party thereto,70a are, it is submitted, open to serious question.
Junior lienors. One who has a junior mortgage, or other lien junior to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed, will ordinarily, if not a party to the proceeding, retain his right to redeem from the mortgage.71 Moreover, a junior mortgagee,72 and presumably any
Lockhart v. Ward, 45 Tex. 227; Collins v. Cunningham, 21 Can. Sup. Ct. 139; Canada Permanent L. & S. Soc. v. Macdonnell, 22 Grants Ch. 461. See 1 Tiffany, Landl. & Ten., p. 419.
70. Ante, Sec. 645(a), note 10. 70a. McDermott v. Burke, 16
Cal. 580; Downard v. Groff, 40 Iowa, 597; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 61 U. S. App. 741, 33 C. C. A. 113, 90 Fed. 379.
71. Howard v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 101 U. S. 837, 25 L. Ed. 1081; Wiley v. Ewing, 47 Ala. 423; Alexander v. Greenwood, 24 Cal. 506; Goodman v. White, 26 Conn. 317; Strang v. Allen, 44 111. 428; Hosford v. Johnson, 74 Ind. 479; Street v. Beal, 16 Iowa, 68, 85 Am. Dec. 504; Harris v. Hooper, 50 Md. 537; Cram v. Cotrell, 48 Neb. 646, 58 Am. St. Rep. 714, 67 N. W. 452;
Brainard v. Cooper, 10 N. Y. 356; Peabody v. Roberts, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 91; Sellwood v. Gray, 11 Ore. 534, 5 Pac. 196; Froelieh v. Swaf-ford, 32 S. D. 142, 144 N. W. 925. See cases cited in note to Jones v. Williams, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 426. 72. Catterlin v. Armstrong, 79 Ind. 514, 101 Ind. 258; Anson v. Anson, 20 Iowa, 55, 89 Am. Dec. 514; Karl v. Conner, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 238, 97 S. W. 1111; Foster v. Johnson, 44 Minn. 290, 46 N. W. 350; Vanderkemp v. Shelton, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 28; Walsh v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. 33; Bigelow v. Devol, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 245, 16 N. Y. Supp. 646; Jones v. Williams, 155 N. C. 179, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 426, 71 S. E. 222; Stewart v. Johnson, 30 Ohio St. 24; Besser v. Hawthorn, 3 Ore. 129, 512. Contra, Dickinson v. Duckworth, other junior lienor, will also, if not a party, retain his former right of foreclosure as against the land, sub ject, however, to the superior lien of the senior mortgage, which will usually have passed, by subrogation, into the hands of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. But the holder of a junior mortgage will be concluded although not a party to the proceeding, at least in some states, if by reason of his failure to record his mortgage, or the assignment to him, the plaintiff was without notice of his interest at the time of instituting the proceeding,73 and acquiring the mortgage after the institution of the proceeding, he would ordinarily, under the doctrine of lis pendens, take subject to the decree therein.74
The failure to make the junior lienor a party to the proceeding does not affect the validity of the decree and sale thereunder, except as regards such lienor,75 and the purchaser at the sale will acquire the property, subject, however, to the rights of such lienor, as above stated, either to redeem or foreclose. Such purchaser is, as regards the junior incumbrancer, an assignee of the mortgage debt,76 and he may according74 Ark. 138, 85 S. W. 82, 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 846. In Denton v Ontario County Nat. Bank, 150 N. Y. 126, it is said that the junior mortgagee, not made a party, might be precluded from subsequently foreclosing, if he knew at the time of the prior foreclosure and did not assert any rights in connection therewith.
73. Reel v. Wilson, 64 Iowa, 13, 19 N. W. 814: Walker v. Fisher. 117 Mich. 72. 75 N. W. 144: Atwater v. West, 28 N. J. Eq. 361: pinney v. Merchants' Nat. Hank, 71 Ohio St. 173, 72 N. E. 88 4.
74. Jones v. Williams, 155 N. C. 179, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 426, 71
S. E. 222; Winchester v. Paine, 11 Ves. Jr. 194.
75. Bradley v. Snyder, 14 111. 263, 58 Am. Dec. 564; Johnson v. Hosford, 110 Ind. 572, 10 N. E. 407, 12 N. E. 522; Anson v. Anson, 20 Iowa, 55, 89 Am. Dec. 514; Porter v. Kilgore, 32 Iowa, 379; Johnson v. Hambleton, 52 Md. 378; Cram v. Cotrell, 48 Neb. 646, 58 Am. St. Rep. 714, 67 N. W. 452; Kay v. Whittaker. 44 N. Y. 565; Frische v. Kramer's Lessee, 16 Ohio, 125, 47 Am. Dec. 368; McCredie v. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co., - Okla. -, 163 Pac. 535.
76. Ante, Sec. 646, note 22.
3 R. P.-28 ly institute a new foreclosure proceeding against such junior incumbrancer not made a party to the former proceeding,77 and he may, according to some decisions, obtain therein a decree of strict foreclosure.78
The failure to make a junior lienor a party to the foreclosure proceeding, since it leaves his rights outstanding, is calculated to prevent proper competition at the sale, and indeed to render the sale nugatory, since it justifies the purchaser in asking to be relieved of his purchase. Consequently, the court will, when cognizant of a jujiior lien, ordinarily require the lienor to be made a party before granting a decree.79