McReynolds v. Munns
New York Court of Appeals
This action was instituted to foreclose a mortgage. Loraine Freeman and Eli P. Sherman, two of the defendants, each had separate mortgages on the same property, and both of which mortgages were prior liens. Freeman and Sherman were made parties and served with summons and notice that no personal claim was made against them.
Read the full summary
This action was instituted to foreclose a mortgage. Loraine Freeman and Eli P. Sherman, two of the defendants, each had separate mortgages on the same property, and both of which mortgages were prior liens. Freeman and Sherman were made parties and served with summons and notice that no personal claim was made against them. Sherman, who is the moving party in the matter now before this court, was informed by his counsel that, as he held a prior lien, and no claim made against him, it was not necessary for him to pay any attention to the suit,-and he put in no answer. His default was taken,…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
So far as mere legal rights are concerned upon a bill of foreclosure, the only proper parties to the suit are the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and those who have acquired rights or interests under them subsequent to the mortgagé. Such was the language of the chancellor- in Eagle Fire Company v. Lent (6 Paige, 637), and that language is" quoted and' approved in Corning v. Haner v. Smith (2 Selden, 82). • There were no rights, other than legal, involved in the foreclosure of plaintiff’s mortgage. The prior mortgages were valid and subsisting liens on the property. The plaintiff’s mortgage was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Barry v. . Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Jacobie v. . MickleNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Clark v. FullerNew York Supreme Court · 1930
- Adams v. McPartlinNew York Supreme Court · 1882
- La Salle Extension University v. ParellaCity of New York Municipal Court · 1937