Manhattan Co. v. Evertson
New York Court of Chancery
The object of this suit, originally, Was to foreclose a mortgage ; and several judgment creditors, and others, having claims upon the estate, were made parties. After a sale and satisfaction of the complainant’s mortgage, one of the defendants obtained an order of reference, under the 136th rule, to ascertain and report the amounts due to the several defendants, which were liens upon the surplus monies; and as to the priorities of such liens.
Read the full summary
The object of this suit, originally, Was to foreclose a mortgage ; and several judgment creditors, and others, having claims upon the estate, were made parties. After a sale and satisfaction of the complainant’s mortgage, one of the defendants obtained an order of reference, under the 136th rule, to ascertain and report the amounts due to the several defendants, which were liens upon the surplus monies; and as to the priorities of such liens. Under this order, the master proceeded and made a report; which report was excepted to by some of the parties who- appeared before the master. The cause…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The application in this case could not have been made to the vice chancellor, under the order of reference to him, notwithstanding he was authorized to decide upon the exceptions and make a final disposition of the suit. For if the report of the master and the subsequent proceedings have been irregular, the reference to the vice chancellor is also irregular. And it must be set aside to enable the applicants to obtain their rights. It appears that proof was exhibited to the master, of the service of the summons on the solicitor for Corlies, Mabbett & Co. But I apprehend there is…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Phelps v. FocklerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883