Magilton v. Holbert

New York Supreme Court

Magilton v. Holbert

59 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 444

DecidedMay 15, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 444 (Magilton v. Holbert) 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

Magilton v. Holbert, 59 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 444 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court .

When a second mortagee pays the interest of the first mortgage, in order to protect Ins own security, we suppose he may “tack” the amount thus paid to his own mortgage, whenever he forecloses, if there be no intervening equity. So, probably, he may do as to [446]*446any costs of tbe foreclosure of tbe first mortgage necessarily paid by him. But be is not entitled to bave an assignment of any share of the first mortgage. Because if be were thus to become an owner in common with tbe first mortgagee, tbe security of tbe first mortgagee would be diminished. Tbe rights of the second mortgagee will be sufficiently protected whenever he shall be compelled to foreclose bis own mortgage, by proof that be has necessarily paid these moneys to protect his security.

Tbe part of tbe order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

Landon and Ingalls, JJ., concurred.

Tbe part of tbe order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

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

By the Court .

When a second mortagee pays the interest of the first mortgage, in order to protect Ins own security, we suppose he may “tack” the amount thus paid to his own mortgage, whenever he forecloses, if there be no intervening equity. So, probably, he may do as to [446]*446any costs of tbe foreclosure of tbe first mortgage necessarily paid by him. But be is not entitled to bave an assignment of any share of the first mortgage. Because if be were thus to become an owner in common with tbe first mortgagee, tbe security of tbe first mortgagee would be diminished. Tbe rights of the second mortgagee will be sufficiently protected whenever he shall be compelled to foreclose bis own mortgage, by proof that be has necessarily paid these moneys to protect his security.

Tbe part of tbe order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

Landon and Ingalls, JJ., concurred.

Tbe part of tbe order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magilton-v-holbert-nysupct-1889.