Legal Opinion

Wakeman v. Hazleton

New York Court of Chancery

Decided May 1, 1848PublishedCited by 4 opinions

This was an appeal from an order of the late vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, denying an application of the complainants for a resale of mortgaged premises, and for other relief, James Skinner, deceased, appointed the complainants his executors, and authorized them to sell his residuary estate and to divide the proceeds thereof among his legatees.

Read the full summary

This was an appeal from an order of the late vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, denying an application of the complainants for a resale of mortgaged premises, and for other relief, James Skinner, deceased, appointed the complainants his executors, and authorized them to sell his residuary estate and to divide the proceeds thereof among his legatees. They sold a farm in Seneca county, which belonged to their testator’s estate, to the defendant E. Hazelton, and took back from him a bond and mortgage for a part of the purchase money. Hazleton afterwards became insolvent and conveyed the…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

It is very evident in this case that if any thing is lost upon the bond and mortgage given to the executors, it will have been occasioned by their negligence in employing a man to foreclose the mortgage, in chancery, who was not authorized to practice, and who suffered the premises to be sold under a decree which was a mere nullity, so far as the rights of the owner of the equity of redemption were concerned. For under such a foreclosure there is no presumption that the mortgaged premises were sold for their value. Nor were the legatees who were adults bound to attend and bid…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. McDaniel v. CallanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
  2. Truscott v. KingNew York Supreme Court · 1849
  3. Carter Oil Co. v. DurbinIllinois Supreme Court · 1941
  4. McCue v. FinckNew York Supreme Court · 1897

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API