Congden v. Sanford

New York Supreme Court

Congden v. Sanford

1 Hill & Den. 196

DecidedJuly 1, 1843

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Hill & Den. 196 (Congden v. Sanford) 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

Congden v. Sanford, 1 Hill & Den. 196 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

The learned judge clearly erred in rejecting the evidence offered, as it established a perfect title to the property in question in the defendant. It would have shown an agreement between him on the one side, and both the mortgagor and mortgagee on the other, to crop the land, which effectually protected him against the operation of the mortgage. (Powell on Mort., 246-8; Costigan v. Hartlan, 2 Sch. & Lef., 160; Keech v. Hall, Doug., 22; Coote on Mortg., 346-8.)

The recording acts have nothing to do with the case, as leases under three years are not within them. (1 R. S., 752, §38.)

New trial granted.

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

By the Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

The learned judge clearly erred in rejecting the evidence offered, as it established a perfect title to the property in question in the defendant. It would have shown an agreement between him on the one side, and both the mortgagor and mortgagee on the other, to crop the land, which effectually protected him against the operation of the mortgage. (Powell on Mort., 246-8; Costigan v. Hartlan, 2 Sch. & Lef., 160; Keech v. Hall, Doug., 22; Coote on Mortg., 346-8.)

The recording acts have nothing to do with the case, as leases under three years are not within them. (1 R. S., 752, §38.)

New trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Hill & Den. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/congden-v-sanford-nysupct-1843.