Denn ex dem. Demarest v. Wynkoop
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover one half of the premises, in the possession of the defend- . <****'• The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the Bfezv-Tork sittings, in December, 1810. A verdict was taken, by consent, for the plaintiff", subject to the opinion, of the court, on a case, containing the following facts: Philip Minthorne was seised of a tract of land of which the premises in question are a part; and on the 18th August, 1732, devised…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover one half of the premises, in the possession of the defend- . <****'• The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the Bfezv-Tork sittings, in December, 1810. A verdict was taken, by consent, for the plaintiff", subject to the opinion, of the court, on a case, containing the following facts: Philip Minthorne was seised of a tract of land of which the premises in question are a part; and on the 18th August, 1732, devised his real and personal estate to his wife, during her widowhood, and the remainder to hjs children, then living, or…
1Per curiam
The defendant sets up a title under the mortgage, executed by Banta and his wife to GabrielLudlow, and if that mortgage interest has not been redeemed, it forms a good defence to the action. The endorsement upon the mortgage by Daniel Ludloxv, who claimed the interest under it, was no satisfaction and. discharge of the mortgage, either at law or in equity. It is very clear that it was not so intended. The land was taken for the debt, and Ludlow retained the mortgage, to secure his title, as the release of Banta alone did not secure the fee. This is the express language of the endorsement, and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Freeman v. PaulSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1825