4 Law Coach 108 (1923-1924)
The Doctrine of Consolidation of Mortgages

handle is hein.journals/lwcoarch4 and id is 112 raw text is: THE LAW COACH-    DECsB*R, 192$

I. The doctrine of consolidation in mortgages is based on
the equitable maxim he who seeks equity must do equity.
.(onsolidation is the right of the mortgagee, where he holds two
.or more properties in mortgage of the same mortgagor to hold
them as one security for all the mortgage debts. The result is
the mortgagor cannot redeem one property without redeeming
the others. The position is more clear from an illustration.
Suppose A the mortgagor mortgages first Whiteacre for 1,000
to X the mortgagee, and subsequently he mortgages Blackacre
to X for another 1,000. If A wishes to redeem Whiteacre X
can say  No ! you cannot redeem one property alone, you must
redeem both Whiteacre and Blackacre or neither of them.
II. The-right to consolidate, however, cannot arise until
there has been default by the mortgagor on both properties.
This is the decision of Cummins v. Fletcher. By this we mean
that while the mortgagor can redeem at law, that is within the
six months which is invariably expressed in all mortgage deeds
as being the duration of the loan, no right to consolidation
arises. It is only when the mortgagor has made default upon
both mortgages by having permitted the fixed period of six
months to elapse in the case of both securities that the right to
consolidate arises. The reason is clear, he who seeks equity
must do equity  ; during the fixed period the mortgagor has
an absolute right to redeem at law, but upon its expiration he
has no legal right of redemption, but merely an equitable right
of redemption; and as the right of the mortgagor becomes then
entirely equitable, so he must do equity to the mortgagee if he
is to be allowed to avail himself of his equity of redemption.
I. Hitherto we have considered consolidation only in a
simple case of where the right to consolidate is sought by the
original mortgagee against the -original mortgagor, but the
doctrine extends also to the transferees of the original parties
and complications arise. We will deal with these shortly --
(a) A is mortgagor, X mortgagee of both Whiteacre and
Blackacre, there being a separate mortgage to X of each
of the two properties. If A transfers both equities of
redemption to C, X can still consolidate, because C takes
the transfers only subject to the same rights of redemption
that A had; as A's right to redeem was subject to con-
solidation, so must C's right also be subject to consolidation
by X. This is the case of Pledge v. White.
(b) If A instead of transferring both equities of redemption to
C, A gives C a second mortgage on both the properties, i.e.,
instead of selling right out both equities of redemption
he mortgages both equities of redemption to C, for remember
that a second mortgage is the mortgage of any equity of
redemption, X can still consolidate against C. This is
Vingt v. Padget.


What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?