Vroom v. Ditmas
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from the decree of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit. In March, 1811, Elkanah Watson, who was the owner of about 80 acres of land in the county of Seneca, conveyed the same to J. Arnold & S. Day, and took back a bond and mortgage to secure the payment of the purchase money. Arnold & Day afterwards, conveyed the land to W. Brundage, subject to the mortgage.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from the decree of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit. In March, 1811, Elkanah Watson, who was the owner of about 80 acres of land in the county of Seneca, conveyed the same to J. Arnold & S. Day, and took back a bond and mortgage to secure the payment of the purchase money. Arnold & Day afterwards, conveyed the land to W. Brundage, subject to the mortgage. In March, 1818, Brundage conveyed to Abraham Ditmas, one of the 'defendants in this suit, and took back a bond and mortgage to secure the purchase money; Ditmas agreeing to pay off the balance due on Watson’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
If the decree of the vice chancellor an this case was right in other respects, it was clearly wrong in requiring the complainant, upon redeeming under the valid mortgage, to pay to the adverse party the costs of the statute foreclosure. In the case of Benedict v. Gilman, (4 Paiges R. 58,) this court decided that the purchaser, under the statute foreclosure, was only entitled to the amount due on the mortgage under which he purchased; and that the subsequent encumbrancer, coming to redeem, was not bound to pay the -costs of a proceeding which as to his rights was wholly…
2Cited by47 opinions
- McGuire v. Van PeltSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Bruce v. . TilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Gage v. . BrewsterNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Briggs v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Manning v. . TylerNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.