Opinion
October 28, 1932.
January 25, 1933.
Practice C.P. — Affidavit of defense — Real estate — Taxes — Liability of real owner — Payment by mortgagee — Recovery of.
In an action of assumpsit by a mortgagee to recover certain taxes, the plaintiff alleged in her statement of claim that she was the holder of a mortgage and that the defendant failed to pay certain taxes while it was the real owner of the real estate subject to the mortgage. She averred that she paid the taxes in order to protect her mortgage. The defendant in its affidavit of defense admitted that the taxes were unpaid and that it was the real owner of the land but alleged that the plaintiff in paying the taxes was a mere volunteer and that plaintiff's interest in the mortgage merged with the title of the real estate which was conveyed to her husband by the defendant.
In such case the affidavit of defense was insufficient and a judgment entered against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will be affirmed.
The real owner of real estate is personally liable for taxes assessed thereon during his ownership.
A mortgagee who pays taxes to protect his interest in the property may recover the sum so paid from the person who was the owner of the property when the taxes fell due. Such mortgagee is not a mere volunteer.
Appeal No. 334, October T., 1932, by defendant from order and judgment of C.P. No. 1, Philadelphia County, June T., 1932, No. 1047, in the case of Rae M. DeHaven v. Roscon Building and Loan Association.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD and PARKER, JJ. Affirmed.
Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action of assumpsit to recover taxes paid by mortgagee. Before KUN, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court made absolute the rule. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the entry of judgment.
Harry C. Liebman, and with him William Kendall, for appellant.
David Friedman, for appellee.
Argued October 28, 1932.
This was an action by a mortgagee of real estate in the City of Philadelphia, (3519 Hamilton Street), against the real owner of the premises during the years 1928 and 1929, to recover the amount of taxes due the City of Philadelphia on said real estate for those years which had been paid by her. The court below entered judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The judgment is too clearly right to need an extended opinion.
Defendant was admittedly the real owner of the land; Diamond, in whose name the record title stood, was only a straw man acting for it. The deed from Diamond to plaintiff's husband was made with the knowledge and by the direction of the defendant. There was no merger of the interest of the mortgagee in the title of her husband. The intention of the parties on this matter was clearly expressed in writing. The agreement required the vendee to pay the taxes for 1930 and 1931. It left the defendant's liability for the 1928 and 1929 taxes undisturbed. A mortgagee who pays taxes, which by law are given priority over his mortgage, is not a mere volunteer: Hogg v. Longstreth, 97 Pa. 255, for, as was said by Mr. Justice TRUNKEY in that case, (p. 259), "When the mortgagor is in possession, and neglects to pay taxes which are a lien on the land, the mortgagee may pay them not only in reliance on the personal liability of the owner, but in reliance that the land is liable, and the lien will be transferred by the State to him in favor of the mortgage-debt." See also Caldwell v. Moore, 11 Pa. 58.
All the other questions raised by the appellant are decided adversely to him by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Penna. Co. Trustee v. Bergson, 307 Pa. 44, 159 A. 32, and on the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.