Wilson v. Wilson
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal, by the complainant, from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, refusing to overrule a plea in a foreclosure suit as frivolous, and denying the usual decree as upon a bill taken as confessed for want of an answer.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal, by the complainant, from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, refusing to overrule a plea in a foreclosure suit as frivolous, and denying the usual decree as upon a bill taken as confessed for want of an answer. The complainant was the assignee of a bond and mortgage given by the defendant D. Wilson, who was still the owner of the equity of redemption; and .the defendant Nowal was made a defendant as a subsequent incumbrancer having a judgment which was a lien upon the mortgaged premises. Previous to the commencement of this suit, the defendant Nowal had…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The plea is so manifestly bad as not to admit of an argument, and must therefore be considered as frivolous. There is no pretence that there was any defect of parties at the time of the commencement of this suit. For no order for the appointment of a receiver had then been made; and the complainant in the creditor’s suit was made a defendant in this bill of foreclosure. Even if the subsequent appointment of a receiver had constituted a valid defence, it could not have been pleaded as a bar to the suit generally, but should have been pleaded in bar of the further continuance of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Brown v. GayTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Wilson v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Higgins v. GillesheinerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1875
- Kirkpatrick v. CorningNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1883
- Scott v. ElmoreNew York Supreme Court · 1877