Clute v. Robinson
New York Supreme Court
The respondent filed his bill in the Court of Chancery against the appellant, for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption of a mortgage executed by the appellant to one Michael Raivlins, and by him assigned to the re-J b . spondent.
Read the full summary
The respondent filed his bill in the Court of Chancery against the appellant, for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption of a mortgage executed by the appellant to one Michael Raivlins, and by him assigned to the re-J b . spondent. On the 28th February, 1809, the appellant executed a bond to Rawlins, conditioned for the payment of 1,200 dollars, on or before the 28th February, 1807, with intersst yearly; and for securing the payment of the bond, at the same time executed a mortgage of the south half part of Lot No. 152, in the Western Allotment of Kingsborough, in the town of Johnstown,…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
Whether the respondent did or did not know of the defeasance, when he took an assignment of , t i , , the bond and mortgage, appears to meto be immaterial, as it respects the claims of the appellant. He took the bond and mortgage, subject to every defence that existed against them in the hands of Rawlins. Clute could not be prejudiced by the assignment. His right, founded upon the bond of defeasance, remained the same. There is no rule of equity better settled, than that a bond, or other chose in action, is liable to the same equity in the hands of the assignee that existed…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Bush v. . LathropNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- James v. MoreyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1823
- Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. ParishCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- Burwell v. . JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Seymour v. DelancyNew York Supreme Court · 1824
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.