Kmetz v. . De Ronde

132 N.E. 921, 231 N.Y. 641, 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 814
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 14, 1921·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Kmetz v. . De Ronde, 132 N.E. 921, 231 N.Y. 641, 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 814 (N.Y. 1921).

132 N.E. 921 (Kmetz v. . De Ronde) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Griffith
183 Misc. 2d 210 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2000)
Northeast Savings, F.A. v. Bailey
143 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Central Hanover Bank v. Roslyn Estates, Inc.
266 A.D. 244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)
Onondaga County Savings Bank v. Markson Bros.
182 Misc. 954 (New York County Courts, 1941)
Ziepke v. Cusimano
222 A.D. 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)