Ingraham v. . Disborough

47 N.Y. 421, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 36
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 6, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 47 N.Y. 421 (Ingraham v. . Disborough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ingraham v. . Disborough, 47 N.Y. 421, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 36 (N.Y. 1872).

Opinion

Peckham, J.

The referee has found that the bond and mortgage in this case were given without consideration as between the original parties. That as between them they were without consideration and void. The testator loaned to the mortgagee $3,000, and took an assignment of the mortgage for $10,000 as collateral security for its payment. Upon these as the controlling facts (there were other minor circumstances all tending to the same result), the referee found for *423 the defendant. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, and ordered a new trial, upon the ground, as appears by their opinion, that the testator was a bona fide holder of the mortgage, and was not subject to any equities or defence existing between the original parties.

This may be the law at some future time. But it is quite clear that it is not as yet. A mortgage like a note, payable to the payee only, is not negotiable, and is always subject to the defence existing between the original parties. This is well settled by authority and upon principle, and no reasoning is necessary in the case. (Clute v. Robison, 2 J. R., 595; Murray v. Lylburn, 2 J. Ch., 441; Livingston v. Dean, 2 J. Ch., 479; James v. Morey, 2 Cow., 246 ; Richards v. Warring, 1 Keyes, 576; and in Bush v. Lathrop, 22 N. Y., 535.) This court held broadly that the assignee of a mortgage took no greater title than his assignor.

Judgment of General Term reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed with costs.

All concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Related

In Re Levine
23 B.R. 410 (S.D. New York, 1982)
Lapis Enterprises, Inc. v. International Blimpie Corp.
84 A.D.2d 286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Beck v. Sheldon
181 N.E. 360 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Gray v. Delpho
97 Misc. 37 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Brown v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
78 N.W. 103 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1899)
Wood v. Travis
24 Misc. 589 (New York Supreme Court, 1898)
Snyder v. Ash
51 N.Y.S. 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Carstens v. Schmalholz
8 N.Y.S. 529 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1890)
Kursheedt v. McCune
20 Abb. N. Cas. 265 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
Scamoni v. Ruck
53 How. Pr. 317 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler
61 N.Y. 88 (New York Court of Appeals, 1874)
Eitel v. Bracken
6 Jones & S. 7 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 N.Y. 421, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingraham-v-disborough-ny-1872.