Suydam v. Bartle
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application, on the part of the complainants in a foreclosure suit in this court, for leave to proceed in an action which had previously been commenced in the supreme court against some of the defendants in this suit, and against Albert Westfall who was not made a party to the bill filed in this court.
Read the full summary
This was an application, on the part of the complainants in a foreclosure suit in this court, for leave to proceed in an action which had previously been commenced in the supreme court against some of the defendants in this suit, and against Albert Westfall who was not made a party to the bill filed in this court. The mortgage was executed by James P. Bartle and others, and upon its face purported to have been given to secure the payment of the gross sum of $40,000, according to the condition of a bond executed by Norton, Bartle and McNeil. But it was in fact given to secure and indemnify the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The commencement of an action at law for the recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage, does not prevent the filing of a bill of foreclosure in this court unless a judgment has been obtained in that action. And the suggestion of the court in the case of Pattison v. Powers, (4 Paige’s Ref. 551,) that the action at law must be discontinued before a foreclosure suit could be commenced in this court, was incorrect. The effect of the 159th section of the title of the revised statutes relative to the court of chancery, (2 R. S. 191,) is only to deprive the plaintiff of the right to…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Equitable Life Insurance Society of United States v. StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Scofield v. . DoscherNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Belmont v. CornenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
- Culver v. Judge of the Superior CourtMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- D'Agostino v. Wheel Inn, Inc., New York County Courts1970
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.