Kortright v. . Cady
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant Cady was a subsequent grantee of the equity of redemption. He averted in his answer, and-proved on the trial, that, after the money secured by the mortgage had become due and the stipulated day for payment had passed, he tendered to the plaintiff the amount due for. princi-' pal and interest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant Cady was a subsequent grantee of the equity of redemption. He averted in his answer, and-proved on the trial, that, after the money secured by the mortgage had become due and the stipulated day for payment had passed, he tendered to the plaintiff the amount due for. princi-' pal and interest. The plaintiff refused to receive it unless Cady would also pay certain taxes upon the mortgaged premises, yyhich the plaintiff had discharged. It was held that Cady was, for reasons unnecessary to be stated, under no obligation…
1Opinion of the Court
The common law recognized two kinds of landed security, respectively known as the vivum vadium, and mortuum vadium. The vivum vadium consisted of a feoffment to the creditor and his heirs, until out of the rents and profits he had satisfied himself his debt. The creditor took actual possession of the estate, and received the rents and applied them from time to time in liquidation of the debt. When it was satisfied, the debtor might reenter and maintain ejectment, and it was said to have been called vivum vadium, because neither debt nor estate was lost. This mode of security is said not to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Runyan v. MersereauNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Edwards v.Farmers' Fire Insurance & Loan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1839
- Jackson ex dem. Bowers v. CraftsNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Post v. ArnotNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- Merritt v. LambertNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by152 opinions
- Jones v. Guaranty & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Miner v. . BeekmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Barson v. . MulliganNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Brinkman v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Rogers v. BentonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
147 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.