McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- Citation
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- Parent Document
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- Jurisdiction
- Montana (state)
- Effective Date
- 1918-01-07
Other Sections in This Document (15)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
- McCarthy v. State Bank of Townsend, 54 Mont. 319 (1918)
Full Text
694 charsOur conclusion, then, is that McCarthy was entitled to subrogation if he wanted it,- but he could waive it, and proceed by independent action to secure reimbursement of the bank. In other words, he had an election of remedies, and he exercised that election — wisely, we think — when he filed his complaint in No. 3,841. Having chosen, he could not thereafter proceed nor contemporaneously maintain his petition in the foreclosure suit; hence the demurrer to that petition was properly sustained. His complaint in the independent action, however, was sufficient to authorize recovery from the Townsend bank, although no cause of action was or could be stated as to Gleason or the Missoula bank.