Bentley v. Jones
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to the plaintiff’s reply to the answer of the defendant Ira Allen. The following facts appear from the pleadings.
Read the full summary
Demurrer to the plaintiff’s reply to the answer of the defendant Ira Allen. The following facts appear from the pleadings. The plaintiff and Silas L. Jones, being the owners as tenants in common of the premises described in the complaint: on the 11th day of October, 1843, executed a mortgage upon the premises to David Buel, Jr., to secure the payment of $400. The mortgage was assigned on the 1st day of May, 1847, to Porter G. Dennison, and on the 9th day of April, 1849, to the defendant William L. Jones. On the 4th of April, 1848, the plaintiff filed his bill against Silas L. Jones, for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
The plaintiff having omitted to file a notice of the pendency of his suit for partition, neither the defendant, Allen, nor Zebulon Jones, can be charged with having constructive notice of that suit when they took their conveyances. They are not, therefore, to be affected by the decree in the partition suit, unless they purchased under such circumstances as would amount to actual notice of the suit and its object. Such actual notice, if alleged, is not admitted, and, for the purpose of this decision, it is to be assumed, that neither Allen nor Zebulon Jones is thus chargeable…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wedderspoon v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Continental Securities Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Supreme Court · 1922