Blyer v. Monholland
New York Court of Chancery
On the 23d of November, 1835, Samuel Fitz Randolph being indebted to the complainant by his bond of $2500, executed to the latter a mortgage on a lot in the city of New York, to secure its payment. On the 1st of February, 1839, Fitz Randoph sold the lot to the defendant, Monholland, for $2800, and conveyed the same to him by a deed of that date.
Read the full summary
On the 23d of November, 1835, Samuel Fitz Randolph being indebted to the complainant by his bond of $2500, executed to the latter a mortgage on a lot in the city of New York, to secure its payment. On the 1st of February, 1839, Fitz Randoph sold the lot to the defendant, Monholland, for $2800, and conveyed the same to him by a deed of that date. The deed was delivered to and accepted by Monholland, and contained the following clause: “ Subject however to a mortgage made to the said John Blyer, by the said Samuel and Huldah his wife, for twenty-five hundred dollars, ($2500) dated the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Assistant Vice-Chancellor.
is sufficiently established by the testimony, that the deed from Fitz Randolph to Monholland, expressed their agreement in relation to the mortgage in question.
The deed comes from the possession of the grantee, containing the assumption of the mortgage. This throws upon him the burthen of proving that the clause was interpolated, and that he did not in fact agree to pay the mortgage.
Some testimony has been taken on this point, and it establishes rather than overthrows, the effect of the deed. Fitz Randolph says that he sold the lot to Monholland for $2800; and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Russell v. . PistorNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Stebbins v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Fidelity Union Tr. v. Multiple RealtyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942