A holds a first mortgage covering two parcels of land, B holds a second mortgage covering one of these parcels, and C holds a second mortgage covering the other parcel, B\u27s mortgage being prior in time to C\u27s. B\u27s mortgage contains the following clause--\u22The property described in the within indenture is subject to an existing blanket mortgage held by A, with release clause of $10 per front foot.\u22 Upon a bill to foreclose A\u27s mortgage, how should the burden of that mortgage be distributed? In Savings Investment \u26 Trust Co. v. United Realty \u26 Mortgage Co., 94 Atl. 588, the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey held that both parcels should be sold, separately, and the paramount mortgage paid out of the proceeds, each parcel contributing in proportion to its price at the sale. The court \u22assumes\u22 (as it can hardly avoid doing upon the authorities) that the \u22rule of sale in inverse order of alienation is applicable in favor of mortgagees, as it is in favor of grantees,\u22 but holds that the language of B\u27s mortgage makes the rule inapplicable in this case.
展开▼
