Merrill v. Hodgkins

134 N.Y.S. 166
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1911
StatusPublished

This text of 134 N.Y.S. 166 (Merrill v. Hodgkins) 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
Merrill v. Hodgkins, 134 N.Y.S. 166 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1911).

Opinion

MERRELL, J.

On September 15, 1881, the Round Island Park Association leased to one E. M. Merrill lot No. 165, Dominion andl Coast avenues, Round Island Park, in the St. Lawrence river, Jefferson county, N. Y., for the period of 99 years. Under the rules and regulations of the Round Island Park Association, under and subject to which said lease was given and accepted, the same could not be assigned or transferred, except with the written consent of the lessor. Thereafter the said lessee erected a cottage on said lot, and held and enjoyed possession thereof for some years. On or about July 25, 1892, the said E. M. Merrill was indebted unto one Susan A. Manning in the sum of $350, evidenced by three promissory notes. On said last-mentioned date, as collateral security for the payment of said notes, said Merrill, without, however, first having obtained the written consent of said Round Island Park Association, assigned to said Susan A. Manning said lease. This assignment was never' recorded in the Jefferson county clerk’s office. One month thereafter, on August 25, 1892, said E. M. Merrill, as further collateral security for the payment of the aforesaid notes for $350, executed to said Susan A. .Manning a mortgage upon certain village property in Carthage, N. Y. Nearly three years later, and on July 12, 1895, the said mortgaged premises in Carthage were conveyed by said E. M. Merrill to the plaintiff, Samuel L. Merrill, for the expressed consideration of $200. Plaintiff, when he took said conveyance, knew of the mortgage thereon to said Manning. Subsequently he realized on a sale of said Carthage lot $525. Susan A. Manning died March 9, 1895, testate, and thereafter letters testamentary upon her will were issued to the defendant Caroline A. French.

From the time of the conveyance of the Carthage lot to the plaintiff it would appear that he paid the interest on the notes given by E. M. Merrill to Susan A. Manning and then in the hands of her said executrix; said interest being paid by plaintiff until August 27, 1907. On said last-mentioned date plaintiff paid said notes and obtained from said executrix a discharge of said mortgage. The notes were not indorsed to the plaintiff, but appear to have been paid, and the mortgage given to secure them discharged of record. The plaintiff admitted upon the trial that the original indebtedness was then discharged. On the same date when said notes were paid and said collateral mortgage discharged, the said executrix of Susan A. Manning attempted to assign to the plaintiff the lease in question, which she found among the papers of her testatrix, and which the latter held by assignment from E. M. Merrill as collateral security for the payment of the three promissory notes. This assignment from the executrix of Susan A. Manning to the plaintiff was never recorded in the Jefferson county clerk’s office, and no consent thereto was obtained from [168]*168the Round Island Park Association. It is to foreclose said lease that plaintiff brings this action.

The defendant Hodgkins claims to own said lease by due assignment thereof and all rights of the lessee thereunder, and by way of defense established upon the trial the following facts: On July 18, 1895, in less than a week after he had deeded the Carthage lot to his brother, the plaintiff, the said E. M. Merrill, for value received, and with the written consent of the Round Island Park Association, transferred and assigned to the defendant Alonzo H. Francis his said lease of the lot on Round Island Park. This assignment was under seal, and was duly acknowledged, and was thereafter duly recorded in the Jefferson county clerk’s office. On the same day said E. M. Merrill, by an instrument in writing, under seal and duly acknowledged, conveyed to said Francis all his right, title, and interest in the premises covered by said lease. Thereafter and on November 29, 1897, said Francis, who was indebted to the defendant Henry C. Hodgkins in the sum of about $450, and who was being pressed by said Hodgkins for pay, assigned to said Hodgkins all his right, title, and interest in and to said1 lease and in and to the property described therein. The said, instrument stated that the assignment and transfer was given as collateral security for the payment of the balance due the defendant Hodgkins upon the promissory note of said assignor, on which there was due about $450 April 9, 1895, and further stated that said assignment and transfer was to become absolute in case the rents of the cottage on said leased property were not, for the seasons of 1898, 1899, and 1900, applied on said note, and that said assignment should become absolute in any event on the 1st day of September, 1900, if said note was not fully paid.

It must be borne in mind that, at the time said defendant took said assignment of said lease from Francis, the assignment theretofore executed by the said lessee to Susan A. Manning to secure the payment of the notes for $350 was not of record, and that the defendant had .no notice or knowledge of any outstanding equities in or claims on the property covered by the lease. Indeed, the first intimation that defendant appears to have had that his right to the lease or the possession of the premises covered thereby was questioned was when, in 1901, some four years after the assignment to him by said Francis, he received a letter from the executrix of Susan A. Manning, deceased, who was a stranger to him, advising him that she claimed to hold an assignment of the lease as security for $350.

As soon as the defendant Hodgkins obtained the assignment of said lease from the defendant Francis, he took possession of the cottage property covered by said lease, paid the taxes thereon, employed an agent to look after the property, rented the same and collected the rentals, and exercised other acts of ownership. He expended from $125 to $150 in betterments to the cottage and boathouse upon the premises. On April 15, 1904, the note held by Hodgkins against Francis, to secure which the former held the assignment of the leasehold estate, not having been paid, the defendant Francis, by an instrument in writing, und'er seal, duly assigned and conveyed to the defendant Hodgkins all his right, title, and interest in and to the said lease [169]*169and all his right, title, and interest in and to the premises therein described. This last-mentioned instrument recited the giving of the assignment of November 29, 1897, and the fact of the failure of said Francis to make the payments therein mentioned and that said payments had never been made, and purported to be an absolute assignment of said leasehold property and all rights and title therein of said defendant Francis. On June 15, 1905, the Round Island Company consented in writing to the assignment of said lease to said defendant Hodgkins. Said last-mentioned assignment from defendant Francis to defendant Hodgkins was thereafter duly recorded in the office of the clerk of the county of Jefferson.

In the answer of the defendant Hodgkins several defenses are urged. It seems to me that it will be only necessary to allude to two of said defenses, either of which precludes any right of action herein on the part of the plaintiff.

[1] First. The defendant Hodgkins is protected by the recording acts, and at the time he took the assignment of the lease in question the prior assignment to Susan A. Manning was not of record, nor was the subsequent assignment from the executrix of Susan A. Manning, to the plaintiff of record.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 N.Y.S. 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-v-hodgkins-nysupct-1911.