Dill v. Satterfield

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order' passed by the Circuit Court for Caroline County, sitting in Equity, awarding to the appellee a writ in the nature of a writ of habere facias possessionem,. It appears from the record that the appellant executed a deed of mortgage to J. Hopkins Tarr, conveying certain lands with the usual condition. The mortgage gave to the mortgagee a power to sell on default.

It was assigned to Charles E. Tarr, and by him was afterwards assigned to the appellee, who proceeded to sell in execution of the power con ⁵³ ferred by the mortgage, and after complying with the requirements of the Code, Article 64, sections 5, 6, 7, 8, et seq., himself became the purchaser. The sale was reported to the Court, and the appellant filed exceptions thereto, which were heard and overruled, and the sale was finally ratified and confirmed. • In answer to the rule to show cause against the writ of possession, the appellant assigned the following causes: 1st. Because the alleged assignment of the said mortgage made by Charles E. Tarr to William C. Satterfield, has never been recorded as required by law. 2d. Because the said mortgage confers the power to sell on J. Hopkins Tarr alone, and the said authority is not transferred by the assignments of said mortgage debt. 3d.

Because said William C. Satterfield is not entitled by law to have the writ of habere faeias issued in his behalf. 4th. Because no bond was filed by said Satterfield as required by law. The first and fourth grounds of objection resting upon averments which were disproved, have been abandoned. The third objection is answered by the provisions of the Act of 1864,