Goldsmith v. Brown
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The complaint alleged that on or about the tenth day of February, 1855, the defendants made and entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiff, under their hands and seals, of that date, in the words and figures following: “ This agreement, made this 10th day of February, 1855, between Augustus J. Brown and Henry Warren, of the city of Brooklyn, of the first part, and Jeremiah Goldsmith, of the second…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The complaint alleged that on or about the tenth day of February, 1855, the defendants made and entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiff, under their hands and seals, of that date, in the words and figures following: “ This agreement, made this 10th day of February, 1855, between Augustus J. Brown and Henry Warren, of the city of Brooklyn, of the first part, and Jeremiah Goldsmith, of the second part: whereas, the said Augustus J. Brown is the owner of a certain mortgage made by David Worcester unto the General…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Brown, J.
The obligation of the defendants was to pay the deficiency upon the mortgage debt, whenever the remedy against the lands mortgaged should have been exhausted and the deficiency ascertained; not that the debt was collectible by a diligent pursuit of the remedies to recover it at the command of the holder. The written contract bears date February 10th, 1855, between the plaintiff of the first part and the defendants Augustus J. Brown and Henry Warren of the second part, and it recites the existence of the mortgage made by David Worcester to the General Theological…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. StienberghNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Merritt v. Lincoln & RoeNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by2 opinions
- McMurray v. . NoyesNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Griffith v. RobertsonNew York Supreme Court · 1878