From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MARTIN v. HICKENLOOPER ET AL

Supreme Court of Utah
Oct 15, 1936
61 P.2d 307 (Utah 1936)

Opinion

No. 5424.

Decided October 15, 1936.

1. MORTGAGES. Where mortgagor has mortgaged two pieces of property, he may require them to be sold separately and in certain order if they are not so related as to form a unit, the separation of which would materially affect the value of either. 2. MORTGAGES. Junior mortgagee may compel different properties under prior mortgage to be sold in such order as to leave for him all possible security, if such order cannot affect rights of prior mortgagee. 3. MORTGAGES. Where one mortgage did not cover water stock which was included in another mortgage, if water stock represented water in gross, such water could be sold first in foreclosure proceedings and then land with its customary water right afterward. EPHRAIM HANSON and MOFFAT, JJ., dissenting from order denying rehearing.

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; William H. Bramel, Judge.

On petition for rehearing of substituted opinion.

Petition denied.

For prior opinion, see 90 Utah 150, 59 P.2d 1139.

See, also, 90 Utah 130, 40 P.2d 213.

Herbert Van Dam, Jr., and Vernon Snyder, both of Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Irvine, Skeen Thurman and A.R. Barnes, all of Salt Lake City, for respondents.


A petition for rehearing filed in this case raises only those points thoroughly considered by this court in two former opinions.

It appears, however, that the mortgage from Hickenlooper to Martin did not cover certain water stock which was included in the deed from Hickenlooper to the Fritsch Loan Trust Company and in the mortgage from Fritsch Loan Trust 1-3 Company to Zorn. Petitioner urges that our decision should specify that the water stock should be sold first. It is elemental that where a mortgagor has mortgaged two pieces of property he may require them to be sold separately and in a certain order, if they are not so related as to form a unit, the separation of which would materially affect the value of either. Likewise, a junior mortgagee may compel different properties under a prior mortgage to be sold in such order as to leave for him all possible security, if such order cannot affect the rights of the prior mortgagee. In this case, if there is water which was not ordinarily used in connection with the land, that is, water stock which represents water which may, without attempt to adhere to the legal niceties of definition, be described as water in gross, the decree should provide that it be sold first and then the land with its customary water right afterward. This is a matter for the lower court to work out. It is not involved in this appeal.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

ELIAS HANSEN, C.J., and FOLLAND, J., concur.

EPHRAIM HANSON and MOFFAT, JJ., dissent from the order denying rehearing.


Summaries of

MARTIN v. HICKENLOOPER ET AL

Supreme Court of Utah
Oct 15, 1936
61 P.2d 307 (Utah 1936)
Case details for

MARTIN v. HICKENLOOPER ET AL

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN v. HICKENLOOPER et al

Court:Supreme Court of Utah

Date published: Oct 15, 1936

Citations

61 P.2d 307 (Utah 1936)
61 P.2d 307

Citing Cases

Martin v. Hickenlooper

Superseding opinion in 90 Utah 130, 40 P.2d 213. Opinion denying petition for rehearing in 90 Utah 185, 61…