Titus v. Velie

New York Court of Chancery

Titus v. Velie

6 Johns. Ch. 435

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedNovember 21, 1822

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 Johns. Ch. 435 (Titus v. Velie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Titus v. Velie, 6 Johns. Ch. 435 (N.Y. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor said, that the costs must be denied* emtil the plaintiff was first paid his debt and costs. In the case of Catlin v. Harned, the junior encumbrancer disclaimed, Here the defendant did not, and, of course, it must be presumed, that he would not have released to the plaintiff, had he been asked to do so. There is no good reason why he should have his costs, to be paid by the plaintiff, in case the fund falls short. In Kenebal v. Scrafton, the first mortgagee, who filed his bill, and foreclosed, had his costs, though the fund proved insufficient to pay all the mortgagees.

Motion denied.

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

The Chancellor said, that the costs must be denied* emtil the plaintiff was first paid his debt and costs. In the case of Catlin v. Harned, the junior encumbrancer disclaimed, Here the defendant did not, and, of course, it must be presumed, that he would not have released to the plaintiff, had he been asked to do so. There is no good reason why he should have his costs, to be paid by the plaintiff, in case the fund falls short. In Kenebal v. Scrafton, the first mortgagee, who filed his bill, and foreclosed, had his costs, though the fund proved insufficient to pay all the mortgagees.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Johns. Ch. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/titus-v-velie-nychanct-1822.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack