Hoard v. . Garner
Opinion
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 263
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 264
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 265
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 266
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 267 My understanding of the covenant is, that the appellant was to take proper means, both for himself and others, to *Page 268 collect the amount of the mortgage. If he omitted for an unreasonable length of time to cause proceedings for foreclosure to be commenced; or if he employed an incompetent solicitor to commence and prosecute them; or if the proceedings, after being commenced, were unduly delayed by his own negligence, or that of his solicitor, his covenant was broken; for in each case, the proper means would not be taken to collect the money. The charge on this branch of the controversy, appears to me to be substantially right.
My impression from an examination of the evidence is, that the charge gave the jury too great a latitude on the subject of damages, but the exception is not sufficiently specific and pointed to reach the error, if one was committed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
10 N.Y. 261 (Hoard v. . Garner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.