Pratt v. Stiles
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment entered on two reports made by a referee. This was an action to redeem, brought by the plaintiff, the mortgagor of chattels against P. and S. Stiles, the former of whom held the mortgage by assignment from the mortgagee, and the latter of whom had purchased, or claimed to have purchased the mortgaged property from him. The property consisted of two horses.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment entered on two reports made by a referee. This was an action to redeem, brought by the plaintiff, the mortgagor of chattels against P. and S. Stiles, the former of whom held the mortgage by assignment from the mortgagee, and the latter of whom had purchased, or claimed to have purchased the mortgaged property from him. The property consisted of two horses. After default on the part of the mortgagor, the mortgagee sold the mortgage to the defendant P. Stiles, who thereafter verbally agreed with the mortgagor, on an extension of the time of payment. On the day appointed,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.*—E. Darwin Smith, J.
The decision of the *154referee, that the mortgagor was entitled to redeem, was clearly right. Though the mortgagee has the legal title, and the law-day has passed for the payment of the money specified in the mortgage, yet, until foreclosure or sale, the right of redemption clearly exists in equity. If the mortgagee sells the property, he will be liable to refund the excess over the mortgage debt to the mortgagor. (3 Den., 33 ; 13 Barb., 630 ; 2 Story's Eq. Jur., § 1031.) But the bill to redeem must be brought within a reasonable time. (1 Ves., 278 ; 2 Johns.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Charter v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Hinman v. JudsonNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Cleaveland v. HunterNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by4 opinions
- Reich v. . CochranNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Arn v. ColemanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Haskins v. KellyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- King v. Van VleckNew York Supreme Court · 1886