The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Roy (H) perpetrated an actionable fraud upon P and obtained more than $12,000. H deposited the money into his bank an used $774.38 thereof to pay and discharge a mortgage held by one Henry N. Wilson on a 33-acre tract of land. The further sum of $3,548.16 was withdrawn from said bank and applied to the payment of a mortgage held by the Fletcher Joint Stock Land Bank on a 160-acre farm. Title to both pieces of real estate was held by Ds, who are husband and wife, as tenants by the entireties, and they were both personally liable for the payment of the debts secured by said mortgages. On September 21, 1934, P obtained a tort judgment against H for the sum of $12,000. This judgment has never been satisfied. Ruth (W) had no knowledge of the fraudulent acts of H at the time said acts were committed, but did have knowledge thereof at the time of the commencement of this action. P sued Ds to be subrogated to the paid off mortgages and the lands be foreclosed, and any proceeds applied to his debts against H. The trial court pronounced that the law was with P on the issues joined as to his right of subrogation to the mortgage on the 33-acre tract of land, which was discharged by the payment of $774.38; that the law was with the W as to P's right of subrogation with respect to the mortgage on the 160-acre farm, which was discharged by the payment of $3,548.16; and that P was entitled to recover from the W the sum of $12,000, less any amount recovered from the foreclosure of the mortgage on the 33-acre tract of land. P appealed. Ds contend that the conclusion denying subrogation to the mortgage on the 160-acre farm was proper because the findings and the evidence failed to disclose certain essential facts, namely: (1) Knowledge on the part of W of the fraud practiced by H or of the judgment rendered against him therefor; (2) that the mortgage debts were paid with money belonging to P; (3) that in discharging the mortgage liens H acted for W; and (4) that demand was made on W prior to the bringing of this action.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.