National Fire Insurance v. McKay
Superior Court of Buffalo
Exceptions. This action was brought against James McKay. It was in the nature of an ejectment. Upon the trial before Justice Clinton and a jury, the following facts appeared. On the 20th of ¡November, 1838, the defendant McKay executed a mortgage upon the lands in question to one Oakley to secure the payment of $10,000, which was duly recorded. Oakley assigned said mortgage to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Exceptions. This action was brought against James McKay. It was in the nature of an ejectment. Upon the trial before Justice Clinton and a jury, the following facts appeared. On the 20th of ¡November, 1838, the defendant McKay executed a mortgage upon the lands in question to one Oakley to secure the payment of $10,000, which was duly recorded. Oakley assigned said mortgage to the plaintiff. On March 20, 1840, McKay conveyed by deed the lands in question to one Burwell, which deed was not recorded until July 8,1841. In December, 1840, the plaintiff filed his bill in chancery to foreclose said…
1Opinion of the CourtMasten, J.
—The judgment in the action of ejectment, brought by Steele against Bennett, is not evidence in this action of the validity of Steele’s title to the premises in question. (1.) The parties to this action are not parties nor privies to that judgment. (2.) The judgment is not upon verdict (2 Rev. Stat., 209, § 36 ; Ryers v. Rippey, 25 Wend., 431; 4 Hill, 468; Christie v. Bloomingdale, 18 How. Pr., 12 ; Bay v. Gage, 36 Barb., 447 ; Kimberly v. Patchin; Dutchess of Kingston, 2 Smith L. Cas., 424).
It was sought upon the argument, to give an extraneous effect to the judgment in Steele v. Bennett, by…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kortright v. . CadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Gardner v. HearttNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Barber v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Watson & Polhemus v. SpenceNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Fort v. BurchNew York Supreme Court · 1849
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Marsh v. Ne-ha-sa-ne Park Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1896