Livingston & Tracy v. M'Inlay
This text of 16 Johns. 165 (Livingston & Tracy v. M'Inlay) 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.
Opinion
It was part of the original agreement at the time the judgment was entered, that it should be a security for future advances, beyond the amount, then actually due to the plaintiffs We see no solid objection to this, any more than to a mortgage being held as security for future advances; so far, at least, as the amount of the condition of the bond. If the amount of the advances, or responsibilities, exceeded the condition of the bond, it would present a different question. Under the circumstances of this case, we think the motion ought not to be granted.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 Johns. 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-tracy-v-minlay-nysupct-1819.