Ensworth v. Lambert
New York Court of Chancery
BILL to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant, L., suffered the bill to be taken pro confesso, and the other defendants answered. The defendant, L., had a mortgage on the premises subsequent to the one owned by the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
BILL to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant, L., suffered the bill to be taken pro confesso, and the other defendants answered. The defendant, L., had a mortgage on the premises subsequent to the one owned by the plaintiffs. The master’s report was obtained preparatory to a final decree for the sale of the land; and the defendant, L., came in and stated, by petition, that George Astor held a mortgage upon the premises, subsequent, in point of registry, to his* and prayed that the plaintiffs might be ordered to amend their bill and make him a party, so that a good- title might be given upon…
1Opinion of the Court
.The Chancellor
ordered the proceedings to be stayed, and that G. A. should be brought into Court, as it was a fixed rule, and essential to justice, that no decree should pass, until all necessary parties were brought in. All incumbrancers existing at the commencement of the suit must be made parties, or else their rights will not be affected by the decree and sale thereon. To save time and expense, a supplemental bill may be filed by the plaintiffs, instead of amending the original bill; and when it is used merely for the purpose of bringing a formal party before the Court, as a defendant,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Haughwout & Pomeroy v. MurphySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1871
- Prouty v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Montgomery v. TuttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- M'Gown v. YerksNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
- Morris v. . WheelerNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.