Home/New York Supreme Court/Delavergne v. Norris

Delavergne v. Norris

7 Johns. 358
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 46 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The verdict ought to be entered for the 1,165 dollars and 14 cents only. If the plaintiff, when he sues on a covenant against encumbrances, has extinguished the encumbrance, he is entitled to recover the' price he has paid for it. But if he has not extinguished it, but it is still an outstanding encumbrance, his damages are but nominal, for he. ought not to recover the value of an incumbrance, on a contingency, where he may never be disturbed by it. This is the reasonable rule; for if he was to recover the value of an outstanding mortgage, the mortgagee might still resort to the defendant, on his personal obligation, and compel him to pay it; and if the purchaser feels the inconvenience of the existing encumbrance, and the hazard of waiting until he is evicted, he may go and satisfy the mortgage, and then resort to his covenant. This is the rule as laid down by the supreme court of Massachusetts, in Prescott v. Trueman, (4 Tyng's Rep. 627.) and it is entitled to the highest respect.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Delavergne v. Norris, 7 Johns. 358 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

7 Johns. 358 (Delavergne v. Norris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Camden Co. Welfare Bd. v. Federal Dep. Ins. Co.
62 A.2d 416 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1948)
De Carli v. O'Brien
41 P.2d 411 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1934)
Feigin v. Russek
131 Misc. 30 (New York City Court, 1927)
Hansen v. Pattberg
212 A.D. 49 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
City of N.Y. v. . N.Y. S.B. Ferry S.T. Co.
131 N.E. 554 (New York Court of Appeals, 1921)
City of New York v. New York & South Brooklyn Ferry & Steam Transportation Co.
231 N.Y. 18 (New York Court of Appeals, 1921)
Ostrow v. Lesser
151 N.Y.S. 512 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Dininny v. Brown
148 A.D. 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
King v. Union Trust Co.
148 A.D. 110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
General Underwriting Co. v. Stilwell
139 A.D. 189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
D'Amelio v. Abraham
54 Misc. 386 (New York Supreme Court, 1907)
Mandigo v. Conway
45 Misc. 389 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Dahl v. Stakke
96 N.W. 353 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
McDaniels v. Gowey
71 P. 12 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Geiszler v. . De Graaf
59 N.E. 993 (New York Court of Appeals, 1901)
Henry v. Hand
59 P. 330 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1899)
McGuckin v. . Milbank
46 N.E. 490 (New York Court of Appeals, 1897)
Utica v. Gates
8 A.D. 181 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
McGuckin v. Milbank
31 N.Y.S. 1049 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Alexander v. Bridgford
27 S.W. 69 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)