Dunkley v. Van Buren
New York Court of Chancery
> BILL to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of a bond. The bill was taken pro confesso, and the Master reported the amount of the bond debt, with the interest due, and unpaid.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The motion must be denied. The party, on a bill to foreclose a mortgage, is confined in his remedy to the pledge. Such a suit is not intended to act in personam • it seems to be generally admitted in the books, that the mortgagee may proceed at law on his bond or covenant, at the same time that he is prosecuting on his mortgage in Chancery; and that after foreclosure here, may sue at law on his bond for the deficiency. (Lord Redesdale, in 1 Sch. and Lef. 176. and 13 Vesey, 205. Aylet v. Hill, Dickens, 551. Took’s case, Dickens, 785. 2 Bro. 125. Perry v. Barker, 13 Vesey, 198.…
2Cited by38 opinions
- Jamaica Savings Bank v. M. S. Investing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Young v. VailNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
- Burrows v. PaulsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
- Frank v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Vansant v. AllmonIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.