Deyermand v. . Chamberlin
New York Court of Appeals
This was an action to foreclose a mortgage. Defendant Chamberlain, who purchased the premises subsequent to the execntion of the mortgage, was sought to be held liable for a deficiency because of a clause in his deed assuming and agreeing to pay the mortgage.
Read the full summary
This was an action to foreclose a mortgage. Defendant Chamberlain, who purchased the premises subsequent to the execntion of the mortgage, was sought to be held liable for a deficiency because of a clause in his deed assuming and agreeing to pay the mortgage. It appeared that • said clause was inserted without the knowledge and contrary to the intention of the parties to the deed, and was not at any time accepted or assented to by Chamberlain, and he only became aware of its existence after the commencement of the suit. ' Held, that Chamberlain was not liable, the court citing Kilmer v. Smith…
1Opinion of the Court
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
A subsequent motion was made for a reargument, which was denied April 18, 1882.
Danfobth, J., writing opinion.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Blass v. . TerryNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Eppes v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Fishback v. J. C. Forkner Fig Gardens, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Renz v. ErnstNew York Supreme Court · 1916
- Van Alstyne v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.