Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McGregor v. . McGregor

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1866Published

This was a proceeding, by supplemental complaint, to revive or continue an action originally brought in the name of James McGregor, now deceased. The supplemental complaint showed that, on the 14th of September, 1852, James Mc-Gregor, deceased, commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage executed to him by the defendant, Duncan McGregor. The other defendants were junior incumbrancers. Duncan McGregor answered, denying the equity. Hone of the other defendants answered.

Read the full summary

This was a proceeding, by supplemental complaint, to revive or continue an action originally brought in the name of James McGregor, now deceased. The supplemental complaint showed that, on the 14th of September, 1852, James Mc-Gregor, deceased, commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage executed to him by the defendant, Duncan McGregor. The other defendants were junior incumbrancers. Duncan McGregor answered, denying the equity. Hone of the other defendants answered. The summons was personally served on all the defendants in the life of James. On the 9 th of February, 1853, James died,…

1Concurrence

The original action having been instituted to foreclose a mortgage, and to compel payment of the mortgage debt, the cause of action survived and continued, notwithstanding the death of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, unless it was discharged by reason of the fact that the defendant, the mortgagor, was named an executor in the will of the mortgagee. It is provided by statute, in this State, that "the naming of any person executor in a will shall not operate as a discharge, or bequest, of any just claim which the testator had against such executor, but such claim shall be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. LawrenceNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
  2. Wurts v. JenkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1851

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

Powered by the Exa API