Jackson ex dem. Limerick v. Voorhis

9 Johns. 129
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At the commencement of the suit, there was a a full and perfect title existing in the loan-officers. The 13th section of the act of the 14th March, 1792, {Lams, vol. 2. p. 288.) is decisive, and will not permit the court to regard any estate as existing in the mortgagor, after a default of 22 days from the 1st Tuesday in May, to pay the interest; for the statute declares that the loan-officer shall then be seised of an absolute indefeasible estate in the land so mortgaged, &c. and the mortgagor shall be [130] utterly foreclosed and barred of all equity of redemption of the mortgaged premises,” &c. The default amounted, ipso facto, to an absolute foreclosure, and, consequently, a complete title exist-e£l out of the lessors, at the commencement of the suit.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Jackson ex dem. Limerick v. Voorhis, 9 Johns. 129 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 129 (Jackson ex dem. Limerick v. Voorhis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maynes v. Moore
16 Ind. 116 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)
Pell v. . Ulmar
18 N.Y. 139 (New York Court of Appeals, 1858)
Olmstead v. . Elder
5 N.Y. 144 (New York Court of Appeals, 1851)
Commissioners of the United States Deposit Fund v. Chase
6 Barb. 37 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Rogers v. Murray
3 Paige Ch. 390 (New York Court of Chancery, 1831)
Jackson ex dem. Tousley v. Rhodes
8 Cow. 47 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1827)