Legal Opinion

Otselic Valley National Bank v. Dapson

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1939PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPersonius, J.

This action was brought to foreclose two mortgages, one given December 28, 1931, by the defendants Dana D. and Edith C. Dapson, and one given July 30, 1934, by the defendants Peter B. and Eleanor H. Paddock, subsequent owners of the same property. The mortgages secured substantially the same debt. Each mortgage contained a covenant that the mortgagors would pay the indebtedness and that if default was made, the mortgageee “ shall have power to sell the premises herein described according to law.” This covenant, even in the absence of a bond or note, is sufficient to support a deficiency…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Matter of Berkovitz v. . Arbib HoulbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Penniman's CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  3. National Surety Co. v. Architectural Decorating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. Frank v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  5. Feiber Realty Corp. v. AbelNew York Court of Appeals · 1934

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Moke Realty Corp. v. Whitestone Savings & Loan Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1975
  2. White v. Wielandt, New York County Courts1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API