Legal Opinion
Kmetz v. . De Ronde
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 14, 1921PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Motion for re-argument. (See 231 N. Y. 255).
1Per curiam
The sureties were rightly charged with the payment of the mortgages which their principal had covenanted to assume.
As between grantor and grantee, the land is generally, if not always, the primary fund for the satisfaction of a mortgage which one of them has agreed to pay (Slauson v. Watkins, 86 N. Y. 597; Matter of Wilbur v. Warren, 104 N. Y. 192).- As between mortgagee and grantee, there is no such restriction. The mortgagee ,may sue upon the purchaser’s covenant of assumption without resort to the security (Burr v. Beers, 24 N. Y. 178; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 N. Y. 253). Here the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burr v. . BeersNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Claim of Wilbur v. Estate of WarrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Thorp v. . the Keokuk Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Slauson v. . WatkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
3Cited by5 opinions
- Onondaga County Savings Bank v. Markson Bros., New York County Courts1941
- In re the Estate of GriffithNew York Surrogate's Court · 2000
- Northeast Savings, F.A. v. BaileyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Ziepke v. CusimanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Central Hanover Bank v. Roslyn Estates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943