White v. De Villiers
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of debt on a-bond, conditioned as follows: “ Whereas the above named James White did on the 19th day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1792, purchase of Michael Gratz, of the city of Philadelphia, a certain tract of-land situated in the county of Otsego, for the sum of 11627 10s. lawful" fnouey of the state of New York, arid for securing the payment thereof, mortgage the" said premisés to the said Michael Gratz.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt on a-bond, conditioned as follows: “ Whereas the above named James White did on the 19th day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1792, purchase of Michael Gratz, of the city of Philadelphia, a certain tract of-land situated in the county of Otsego, for the sum of 11627 10s. lawful" fnouey of the state of New York, arid for securing the payment thereof, mortgage the" said premisés to the said Michael Gratz. And whereas the. said James White' hath this day conveyed-the said land to the said Lewis De Yilliers, and Rensselaer Williams, jun. Now, the condition of this…
1Per curiam
The land mentioned in the condition was sold by the plaintiff, subject to the incumbrance of the mortgage, and under an agreement to be indemnified against it. The amount due on the mortgage must, therefore, have entered into the price, and according ,lo the Spirit, of the contract, was to be paid by the defendant.
The bond and mortgage could not have been considered as separate debts. They were concurrent securities for, the same demand, and the indemnity against one includes an indemnity against both.
We are, therefore, of opinion, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover according to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RoarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1851
- Wight v. WarnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1844
- Jennison v. HapgoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1827