Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Wellfare, 110 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Civ.App. 1937), rehearing denied (1937). The issuing of an attachment by the mortgagee against the mortgagor on the mortgage debt, and the obtaining of a judgment thereunder is not per se a waiver of the mortgage lien. Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J. Eq. 276, 23 A. 476 (1892). Here, PCA did not act in a manner inconsistent with the continuation of its mortgage lien.
Judgment on a mortgage bond does not extinguish the old debt or operate as a waiver of the lien, or impair the security of the mortgage. Flanagan v. Westcott,11 N.J. Eq. 264; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J. Eq. 276. Reduction of a debt to judgment does not deprive the creditor of his right to resort to a fund or security. Graves v. Coutant, 31 N.J. Eq. 763, 780; SecondNational Bank v. Townsend (Ind.), 17 N.E. Rep. 116; Murphy v. Manning, 134 Mass. 138. For the rule applied to pledges, see 49 C.J. 940. Niebuhr's judgment does not impair his statutory lien.
"We have not been able to find a direct adjudication in this State sustaining his Honor in excluding parts of the deposition of Mrs. Turner, because the whole was not offered, but the authorities elsewhere are in accordance with his ruling. Killbourne v. Jennings, 40 Iowa 475; Schwartz v. Brunswick, 73 Mo. 257; Hamilton v. Milliken, 62 Neb. 117; S. v. Rayburn, 31 Mo. App. 386; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J. E. 276; Grant v. Pembry, 15 Kan. 242." Barton v. Morphis, 15 N.C. 243.
The party offering in evidence a deposition taken in his behalf, must present the entire deposition competent and pertinent to the issues involved. Logan v. McGinnis, 12 Pa. 27, 32; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J. Eq. 276, 283, 23 A. 476; Kilbourne, Jenkins Co. v. Jennings Co., 40 Iowa 473, 474; 13 Cyc. 983. The other rulings on evidence, and the parts of the charge excepted to, furnish no sufficient ground for a new trial, and are not important enough to require discussion.
The simple question involved is, whether it is permissible for a party to introduce in evidence selected portions of the deposition of his own witness, omitting the rest, and, clearly, this question must be answered in the negative. (Kilbourne v. Jennings, 40 Iowa, 473; Grant v. Pendery, 15 Kan. 236; Hill v. Sturgeon, 28 Mo. 323; State v. Rayburn, 31 Mo. App. 385; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J. Eq. 276; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482.) In this state, the only authority for the use of depositions is in the provisions of the code which provides that "the deposition" may be used (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 2228, 2232, 2234); but it is not said that portions of them can be used, nor can it be inferred that such was the intention.
The first mortgages in Ward and a number of other cases that granted priority to subsequent mortgages or liens did not involve construction loans. See Ward, supra, 17 N.J. Eq. 93 ; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J. Eq. 276, 23 A. 476 (Ch.1892), aff'd o.b. sub nom. U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Lanahan, 50 N.J. Eq. 796, 27 A. 1032 (E. & A.1893) ; Heintze v. Bentley, 34 N.J. Eq. 562 (E. & A.1881) ; Jacobus v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 27 N.J. Eq. 604 (E. & A.1876) ; Griffin v. N.J. Oil Co., 11 N.J. Eq. 49 (Ch.1855). Although these precedents date from the nineteenth century, they have not been overruled or superseded by any case or statute that has been brought to our attention.
To do so, however, requires a brief synopsis of the case law dealing with advance money construction mortgages, measured against the parameters of actual or constructive notice, and obligatory or optional advances. See Mayo v. City Nat'l Bank Trust Co., 56 N.J. 111 (1970); Passaic Nat'l Bank Trust Co. v. Owens, 111 N.J. Eq. 486 (E. A. 1932); Micele v. Falduti, 101 N.J. Eq. 103 (Ch. 1927); Germania B. L. Ass'n v. B. Fraenkel Realty Co., 82 N.J. Eq. 49 (Ch. 1913), aff'd 84 N.J. Eq. 164 (E. A. 1914); Porch v. Agnew, 70 N.J. Eq. 328 (Ch. 1905), aff'd 72 N.J. Eq. 319 (E. A. 1906); Central Trust Co. v. Continental Iron Works, 51 N.J. Eq. 605 (E. A. 1893); Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J. Eq. 276 (Ch. 1892); Heintze v. Bentley, 34 N.J. Eq. 562 (E. A. 1881); Jacobus v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 27 N.J. Eq. 604 (E. A. 1876); Platt v. Griffith, 27 N.J. Eq. 207 (Ch. 1876); Macintosh v. Thurston, 25 N.J. Eq. 242 (Ch. 1874). See, also, Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch. 34, 51, 3 L.Ed. 260 (1812).
Judgment on a mortgage bond does not extinguish theold debt or operate as a waiver of the lien, or impair the security of the mortgage. Flanagan v. Westcott, 11 N.J.Eq. 264; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N.J.Eq. 276, 23 A. 476. Reduction of a debt to judgment does not deprive the creditor of his right to resort to a fund or security. Graves v. Coutant, 31 N.J.Eq. 763, 780; Second National Bank v. Townsend, 114 Ind. 534, 17 N.E. 116; Murphy v. Manning, 134 Mass. 488.
The judgment in attachment having been obtained after filing the bill and notice of the conveyance to complainant by Mrs. Prival, and complainant's rights arising thereunder, defendant, as judgment creditor, is not protected under the recording acts. Canda v. Powers, supra, 38 N. J. Eq. 418; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N. J. Eq. (5 Dick.) 276, 281, 23 Atl. 476 (Pitney, V. Ch. 1892). Second.
Among the numerous cases cited by counsel I mention the following: Bell v. Fleming, 12 N. J. Eq. 13, affirmed Id. 491; Robinson v. Urquhart, 12 N. J. Eq. 515; Flannigan v. Westcott, 11 N. J. Eq. 264; Hoy v. Bramhall, 19 N. J. Eq. 564, 97 Am. Dec. 687; Farnum v. Burnett, 21 N. J. Eq. 87; Griffin v. N. J. Oil Co., 11 N. J. Eq. 49; Silvers v. Potter, 48 N. J. Eq. 539, 22 Atl. 584; Underbill v. Atwater, 22 N. J. Eq. 16; Atwater v. Underbill, 22 N. J. Eq. 603; Lanahan v. Lawton, 50 N. J. Eq. 276, 23 Atl. 476. I venture the suggestion, however, that under the circumstances of this case the validity of the mortgages is of little consequence.