Pitt v. Amend
New York Supreme Court
Controversy between William A. Pitt, plaintiff, and Arthur H. Amend, defendant, submitted without action on an agreed state of facts, to compel performance of a contract for the purchase of real property.
1Opinion of the CourtPratt, J.
Foreclosure by advertisement, in which the defendant purchaser refused title solely because of the alleged defect in the foreclosure in not giving notice of the sale to the “personal representatives” of the deceased mortgagor, required by .the statute (chapter 346, Laws 1844). The case, as agreed upon, shows that the mortgage was made by Patrick Connell and Mary Daly Connell, his wife, and that the notice of sale was served on Patrick Connell, but that Mary Daly Connell had deceased before the foreclosure, intestate. Whatever rights in the mortgaged premises Mary Daly Connell died seised and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- King v. DuntzNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Cole v. MoffittNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Hubbell v. SibleyNew York Supreme Court · 1871
- Hickok v. BlissNew York Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re FosterNew York Supreme Court · 1920