King v. Whitely
New York Court of Chancery
\ This was an appeal by the complainant from so much of the decision and decree of the late assistant vice chancellor of the first circuit, as related to the liability of the respondents, Whitely and Close, for the deficiency of a mortgage debt, after exhausting the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged premises.
Read the full summary
\ This was an appeal by the complainant from so much of the decision and decree of the late assistant vice chancellor of the first circuit, as related to the liability of the respondents, Whitely and Close, for the deficiency of a mortgage debt, after exhausting the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged premises. The premises were mortgaged by the defendant Wadsworth, on the 10th of June, 1835, to J. G. Pearson, to secure the payment of $2600 in two years, with semi-annual interest, at the rate of six per cent per annum. And the bond and mortgage were assigned by Pearson to J. G. King, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The agreement between the complainant and Whitely, endorsed upon the mortgage, could only render the latter liable for the payment of the interest, at the rate of seven per cent, during the time of the extension agreed upon. Í The only question in this case, therefore, is whether the complainant is entitled to the benefit of an agreement made between the respondents and Wilkes, who does not appear to have been liable for the payment of the mortgage debt, or to have had any interest in discharging the mortgage, except so far as it was an incumbrance upon the premises which he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schemerhorn v. VanderheydenNew York Supreme Court · 1806
3Cited by64 opinions
- Vrooman v. . TurnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Keller v. AshfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Burr v. . BeersNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Garnsey v. . RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Dean v. WalkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.