Park v. Peck
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this case was filed to foreclose a mortgage given in 1803, which had been due more than twenty years. One of the defendants was the purchaser of the equity of redemption, and the others were the judgment creditors of such purchaser. They alleged, in their answers, that the mortgage was paid, and insisted upon the lapse of time as evidence of such payment.
Read the full summary
The bill in this case was filed to foreclose a mortgage given in 1803, which had been due more than twenty years. One of the defendants was the purchaser of the equity of redemption, and the others were the judgment creditors of such purchaser. They alleged, in their answers, that the mortgage was paid, and insisted upon the lapse of time as evidence of such payment. To rebut this presumption, the complainant gave in evidence the admissions of the administrator of the mortgagor, and also the admissions of the purchaser of the equity of redemption made by him subsequent to his purchase and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—The evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption of payment arising from the lapse of time-The mortgage was given in 1803, and payable the succeeding year. The mortgagor was a brother of the complainant, and continued poor until his death, in 1810 or 1811. In the latter year his administrator acknowledged the mortgage was unsatisfied, and sold the premises under the surrogate’s order subject to the lien thereof. The evidence is sufficient also to show that Peck, the purchaser, frequently recognized it as an existing incumbrance and promised to settle it.
These admissions…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Harrington v. SladeNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Smith v. BurnhamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1837
- Carll v. HartNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Danbury v. RobinsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1862
- Moore v. ClarkNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.