Pell v. . Ulmar
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action to recover possession of a lot of land in Williamsburgh, commenced in February, 1854, and tried before the late Mr. Justice Rockwell, without a jury. One Richard A. Cooke was seized in fee of the lot on the 24th July, 1837, and on that day mortgaged it, with, other lots, to “ The commissioners fo loaning certain moneys of the United States, of the county of Kings.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action to recover possession of a lot of land in Williamsburgh, commenced in February, 1854, and tried before the late Mr. Justice Rockwell, without a jury. One Richard A. Cooke was seized in fee of the lot on the 24th July, 1837, and on that day mortgaged it, with, other lots, to “ The commissioners fo loaning certain moneys of the United States, of the county of Kings.” On the 7th May, 1838, Cooke conveyed the lots to the plaintiff, subject to the mortgage, the latter agreeing to pay the mortgage debt and interest. The interest on the mortgage, payable on the…
1Opinion of the CourtDenio, J.
If this had been an ordinary mortgage between individuals, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover. The mortgagor, under whom he claimed, had made default and the estate was forfeited at law. The interest which remained in the plaintiff, as the grantee of the mortgagor, was an equity of redemption. But the owner of an equity of redemption in mortgaged premises after forfeiture never could maintain ejectment against the mortgagee in possession, or any one holding under him. He has only the right to redeem in. equity. Formerly the mortgagee could maintain ejectment, but this is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Van Duyne v. ThayreNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Jackson ex dem. Limerick v. VoorhisNew York Supreme Court · 1812
3Cited by23 opinions
- Howell v. . LeavittNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Hubbell v. . MoulsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Stouffer v. HarlanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
- Cooke v. CooperOregon Supreme Court · 1889
- Forster v. ForsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.