Dunning v. Fisher

New York Supreme Court

Dunning v. Fisher

27 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 178

DecidedFebruary 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 27 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 178 (Dunning v. Fisher) 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

Dunning v. Fisher, 27 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 178 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J. :

The defendant, Clara B. Leavitt, took title to the premises covered by the mortgage in question from one Henry W. Fuller. Her conveyance was made subject to the plaintiffs’ mortgage, and she assumed to pay it as part of the purchase money. Fuller acquired title of a Mrs. Fisher. She gave the mortgage in question to the plaintiffs. The source of title, so far as the same is material for the consideration of this case, dates from a foreclosure action commenced in 1857. The then owner of the equity of redemption, one Ephriam H. Howell, was made a defendant and served by publication. He was in fact dead at the time of the service of the summons in this way. One Roberts bought at the foreclosure sale. There was a prior mortgage of $5,500 upon the premises at the time of the sale, and subject to which the sale was made. Howell was bound to pay both mortgages. Roberts, after ho took the deed, paid the prior mortgage of $5,500, and sold free and clear to Coe. Coe sold to Fisher. I think that the defendant Leavitt was a mortgagor in possession, and could n'ot be dispossessed by ejectment, and that she was bound to defend the action brought against her by the heirs of Howell. The effect of the various deeds from Roberts down to her was to place each of the grantees in privity with the mortgagee in the foreclosure action. Mrs. Leavitt’s defence as mortgagor in possession is averred in the very complaint in ejectment by means of which she claims to have been evicted. The eviction, if not collusive, was entirely illegal, and the case must be considered as if there were no eviction. Mrs. Howell, without the eviction, is in possession under a deed with full covenants of title, and those full covenants are contained in all the deeds since the foreclosure.

The case does not show whether the statute of limitation has run against the Howell heirs. The defendant Howell has her action against her grantor upon the covenants of title,- and this will [182]*182be sufficient to uphold her covenant to pay the mortgage in question.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Present — BarNARd, P. J., and Pratt, J.; Gilbert, J., not sitting.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

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

Barnard, P. J. :

The defendant, Clara B. Leavitt, took title to the premises covered by the mortgage in question from one Henry W. Fuller. Her conveyance was made subject to the plaintiffs’ mortgage, and she assumed to pay it as part of the purchase money. Fuller acquired title of a Mrs. Fisher. She gave the mortgage in question to the plaintiffs. The source of title, so far as the same is material for the consideration of this case, dates from a foreclosure action commenced in 1857. The then owner of the equity of redemption, one Ephriam H. Howell, was made a defendant and served by publication. He was in fact dead at the time of the service of the summons in this way. One Roberts bought at the foreclosure sale. There was a prior mortgage of $5,500 upon the premises at the time of the sale, and subject to which the sale was made. Howell was bound to pay both mortgages. Roberts, after ho took the deed, paid the prior mortgage of $5,500, and sold free and clear to Coe. Coe sold to Fisher. I think that the defendant Leavitt was a mortgagor in possession, and could n'ot be dispossessed by ejectment, and that she was bound to defend the action brought against her by the heirs of Howell. The effect of the various deeds from Roberts down to her was to place each of the grantees in privity with the mortgagee in the foreclosure action. Mrs. Leavitt’s defence as mortgagor in possession is averred in the very complaint in ejectment by means of which she claims to have been evicted. The eviction, if not collusive, was entirely illegal, and the case must be considered as if there were no eviction. Mrs. Howell, without the eviction, is in possession under a deed with full covenants of title, and those full covenants are contained in all the deeds since the foreclosure.

The case does not show whether the statute of limitation has run against the Howell heirs. The defendant Howell has her action against her grantor upon the covenants of title,- and this will [182]*182be sufficient to uphold her covenant to pay the mortgage in question.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Present — BarNARd, P. J., and Pratt, J.; Gilbert, J., not sitting.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunning-v-fisher-nysupct-1880.