Church v. Maloy

New York Supreme Court

Church v. Maloy

16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 148

DecidedDecember 15, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 148 (Church v. Maloy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Church v. Maloy, 16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 148 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

BakNaed, P. J.:

There was no legal application of the $500 paid by defendant Maloy to plaintiff for the extension of time of payment of the mortgage. It was not designed by the parties to be a payment on the mortgage. No notice was given by either party applying it. It was simply a sum of money paid by a mortgage debtor to obtain lenity. The,law will not permit the holder of the mortgage to keep it. He cannot in justice and equity retain it. The debtor may sue for the money or have it applied on the mortgage. The law does not, however, apply it unless he asks its application. By the non-payment of the half-yearly interest which became due November 1, 1875, and its continuance in arrears for more than twenty days thereafter, the whole principal and interest became due by the terms of the bond. No application of the $500 had then been made. The defendant, by his answer, asks to have it applied after suit brought on account of the interest due first. The referee allowed it on the principal and interest. This was the right disposition of it. (Hartley v. Tatham, 1 Keyes, 222.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present — BaeNAkd, P. J., Pbatt and DyKMAN, JJ.

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

BakNaed, P. J.:

There was no legal application of the $500 paid by defendant Maloy to plaintiff for the extension of time of payment of the mortgage. It was not designed by the parties to be a payment on the mortgage. No notice was given by either party applying it. It was simply a sum of money paid by a mortgage debtor to obtain lenity. The,law will not permit the holder of the mortgage to keep it. He cannot in justice and equity retain it. The debtor may sue for the money or have it applied on the mortgage. The law does not, however, apply it unless he asks its application. By the non-payment of the half-yearly interest which became due November 1, 1875, and its continuance in arrears for more than twenty days thereafter, the whole principal and interest became due by the terms of the bond. No application of the $500 had then been made. The defendant, by his answer, asks to have it applied after suit brought on account of the interest due first. The referee allowed it on the principal and interest. This was the right disposition of it. (Hartley v. Tatham, 1 Keyes, 222.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present — BaeNAkd, P. J., Pbatt and DyKMAN, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/church-v-maloy-nysupct-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack