Brumley v. Fanning

1 Johns. Ch. 501, 1815 N.Y. LEXIS 212, 1815 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 45
New York Court of Chancery·Decided September 14, 1815·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The plaintiff has parted with his fee, at law, to the mortgagees, and has sold his equity of redemption to Fanning. He, therefore, has no interest remaining in the land, and can have no action concerning it. On what ground, then, can he enjoin the exercise of the rights'of the owner ? He will be answerable for what the land fails towards satisfying the debt; so. must a surety for the insolvency of his principal; but can he control his improvident acts ?

Injunction refused,

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brumley v. Fanning, 1 Johns. Ch. 501, 1815 N.Y. LEXIS 212, 1815 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 45 (N.Y. 1815).

1 Johns. Ch. 501 (Brumley v. Fanning) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hurst v. Elliott
5 N.Y.S. 218 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)