Christie v. Herrick
New York Court of Chancery
This was a demurrer by Herrick, one of the defendants, to the complainant’s bill. The object of the bill was to foreclose and obtain satisfaction of a bond and mortgage, given by Herrick to T. D. Christie, on the 14th of November, 1840, conditioned for the payment of $2759, with'interest from the date of such bond and mortgage; of which sum $759, with the interest thereon, was to be paid in one year, and the residue in four equal, annual payments from that time.
Read the full summary
This was a demurrer by Herrick, one of the defendants, to the complainant’s bill. The object of the bill was to foreclose and obtain satisfaction of a bond and mortgage, given by Herrick to T. D. Christie, on the 14th of November, 1840, conditioned for the payment of $2759, with'interest from the date of such bond and mortgage; of which sum $759, with the interest thereon, was to be paid in one year, and the residue in four equal, annual payments from that time. The bill set out an absolute assignment of the bond and mortgage to the complainant, in May, 1841. But the assignment stated that…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The bill in this case does not show that the original mortgagee has such an interest in the bond and mortgage as to make him a necessary party to the bill of foreclosure. Where the mortgage is assigned as a mere security for the payment of a debt, as in the cases of Hobart v. Abbot, (2 P. Wms. 643,) and Johnson v. Hart, (3 John. Cas. 322,) cited by the defendant’s counsel, or where but a part of the mortgage debt is assigned to the complainant, the assignor is a necessary party to a bill filed to foreclose the mortgage; so that a perfect decree may be made which will protect…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kidd v. DennisonNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Corporate Investing Co. v. Gracehull Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Warner v. DanielsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1845