Jackson ex dem. Ireland v. Hull

10 Johns. 481
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1813
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 10 Johns. 481 (Jackson ex dem. Ireland v. Hull) 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
Jackson ex dem. Ireland v. Hull, 10 Johns. 481 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1813).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sale of the premises on execution,, not amounting to a satisfaction of the judgment, was not an extinguishment of the mortgage. The creditor who takes a mortgage to secure a debt by bond, or otherwise, has three remedies, either of which he is at liberty to pursue, and all of which he may pursue until his debt is satisfied. He may bring an action of debt upon the bond, or he may put himself in possession of the rents and profits of the land mortgaged by means of an ejectment, or he may foreclose the equity of redemption and sell the land to satisfy the debt. In this case the creditor sues on the bond and obtains judgment and execution, and the execution strictly reaches only to the remaining interest of the mortgagor in the land. It reaches only to the equity of redemption. That is all that was sold in the present case, and that was all the defendant meant to purchase; for at the time of the purchase he knew of the existence of the mortgage, and that it was unsatisfied, and he gave only the sum of 70 dollars for the land, though it had been mortgaged to secure above 700 dollars. This, then, is not a case in which the creditor’s pursuit of his remedy on the mortgage, works any injury or injustice to the purchaser under the previous execution, and it is a case in which the creditor would lose his security, and probably his debt, if the present remedy was denied him. There is good reason, arising out of the above facts, why the court should consider-this ease upon strict legal principles. Justice requires that it should be so considered, and it is not true that the plaintiff, by this remedy, is defeating the sale made under his direction, or that the salé was of the interest which had been pledged to him by the mortgage. The sale was Only of the residuum of interest remaining in the mortgagor after the execution of his mortgage. The mortgage interest is no further touched by the sale [489]*489rlian the purchase-money of the equity of redemption may go diminish the amount of the debt. The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to judgment. to

Judgment for the plaintiff

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

Related

The First National Bank & Trust Co. of Walton v. Eisenrod
263 A.D. 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Whitmore v. Tatum
16 S.W. 198 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1891)
Morris v. Branchaud
8 N.W. 883 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1881)
Rice v. Wilburn
31 Ark. 108 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1876)
Harris v. Vaughn
2 Tenn. Ch. R. 483 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1875)
Davis v. Hamilton
50 Miss. 213 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1874)
Webb v. Van Zandt
16 Abb. Pr. 190 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1863)
Barker v. Bell
37 Ala. 354 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1861)
Southworth v. Van Pelt
3 Barb. 347 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Piatt v. Oliver
19 F. Cas. 550 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, 1840)
Wilson v. Stoxe
10 Watts 434 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1840)
Worthington v. Lee
2 Md. Ch. 678 (Maryland Chancery Ct, 1830)
James v. Morey
2 Cow. 246 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1823)
M'Call v. Lenox
9 Serg. & Rawle 302 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1823)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Johns. 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-ireland-v-hull-nysupct-1813.