Ord
Ord v. Bartlett
Opinion
Opinion on Rehearing
Beatty, J.
It is ordered that the petition for
rehearing herein be and the same is hereby denied, but the judgment of the Department No. 2 herein is modified by the addition of the following: —
Provided, that nothing in this judgment or in the judgment appealed from shall be construed or held to prejudice or affect any rights of the appellants in or to the mortgaged premises derived from William M. Ord, the mortgagor and common grantor, prior to January 24, 1887, the date of plaintiff’s note and mortgage, described in the complaint herein.
Thornton, J., Fox., J., and McFarland, J., concurred.
Lead Opinion
Belcher, J.
— On the twenty-fourth day of January, 1877, William M. Ord executed to the plaintiff (then Mrs. Anne E. Williams) his promissory note for seven hundred dollars, and a mortgage to secure payment of the same. Subsequently the plaintiff became the wife of Ord, and there was born to them a child named Anne Victoria Ord. On the 26th of April, 1882, Ord died intestate, leaving him surviving the plaintiff, his widow, and the child, Anne Victoria, as his only heirs at law. Administration on the estate of the decedent was taken out, and S. A. Bartlett was duly appointed the administrator thereof.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose her mortgage, making Bartlett, as administrator of the estate, and other parties, defendants. As to the defendants other than Bartlett, the complaint alleged that they had, or claimed to have, some interest in or claim upon the mortgaged premises, which interests or claims were subsequent and subject to the lien of the plaintiff’s mortgage.
*430 Bartlett allowed a default to be entered against him. The other defendants answered, and, among other things, denied that their interest in or claim upon the mortgaged premises was subsequent or subject…