Kmetz v. . De Ronde
This text of 132 N.E. 921 (Kmetz v. . De Ronde) 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.
Opinion
The sureties were rightly charged with the payment of the mortgages which their principal had covenanted to assume.
As between grantor and grantee, the land is generally, if not always, the primary fund for the satisfaction of a mortgage which one of them has agreed to pay (Slauson v. Watkins, 86 N. Y. 597; Matter of Wilbur v. Warren, 104 N. Y. 192).- As between mortgagee and grantee, there is no such restriction. The mortgagee ,may sue upon the purchaser’s covenant of assumption without resort to the security (Burr v. Beers, 24 N. Y. 178; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 N. Y. 253). Here the vendor of the land was also the holder of the mortgages. As between him and the defendants, the covenant to assume was a covenant to pay (Burr v. Beers, supra; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., supra).
The motion should be denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements.
All concur.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
132 N.E. 921, 231 N.Y. 641, 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kmetz-v-de-ronde-ny-1921.