Millspaugh v. McBride
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the court upon an order for the complainant to show cause why the decree in this cause should not be vacated and the enrolment thereof cancelled, and the sale under the same set aside, and the defendants, Pinckney and Bertine, let in to defend the suit.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court upon an order for the complainant to show cause why the decree in this cause should not be vacated and the enrolment thereof cancelled, and the sale under the same set aside, and the defendants, Pinckney and Bertine, let in to defend the suit. The bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage given by the defendant McBride to the complainant; and the defendants Pinckney and Bertine, who had purchased the equity of redemption subject to the complainant’s mortgage, and who had also taken an assignment of an older mortgage for the purpose of protecting their title, were…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There is no doubt in this case, from the facts as stated, that the defendants Pinckney and Bertine were the first incumbrancers upon the mortgaged premises, and that their mortgage, which was assigned to them for the purpose of protecting their title against the junior mortgage, was not, as against such junior mortgage, merged in the equity of redemption. It was, in equity, impossible for the prior mortgage, or the equitable interest of the defendants therein, to unite With their legal title to the equity of redemption, by reason of the intermediate equity which the complainant…
2Cited by44 opinions
- Thompson v. . Van VechtenNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Payne v. . WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Hanlon v. DohertyIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Sheldon v. . EdwardsNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Sullivan v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.