Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

134 N.Y. 489

32 N.E 21

48 N.Y.St.Rep. 324

McFadden v. . Allen

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 1, 1892

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1892-10-01

This was an action to recover for the alleged conversion of certain structures, machinery and other articles placed upon real estate hy plaintiff. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion of Follett, Ch. J.

Relies on People Ex Rel. Williams v. . Dayton · Rector of Christ Protestant Episcopal Church v. MacK · Sheldon v. . Edwards

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-10-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 1966 · most notably Fuller-Warren Co. v. Harter (1901), Kinnear v. Scenic Railways Co. (1909)

4 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

14018921900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The mortgage, through the foreclosure of which the defendants derived their title, was prior to the agreement between the mortgagor and the plaintiff. The title taken by the foreclosure vested by relation as of the time mortgage was made. (Rector,etc., v. Mack,93 N.Y. 488; Batterman v. Albright, 122 id. 484.) It does not appear that the mortgagee in any manner assented to such agreement.

¶2In Sheldon v. Edwards (35 N.Y. 279) the arrangement that the property there in question should be treated as personal was made between the mortgagor and mortgagee.

¶3In Tifft v. Horton (55 N.Y. 377) there was a stipulation of the mortgagee made before the sale that the legal rights of the plaintiff should not be changed by the foreclosure sale.

¶4In Globe M.M. Co. v. Quinn (76 N.Y. 23) the plaintiff was assignee of lease of the premises made prior to the mortgage, and in Tyson v. Post (108 N.Y. 217) the mortgagee was a party to the agreement that the property in controversy there should remain personal.

¶5I concur in affirmance.

¶6BROWN and VANN, JJ., concur with FOLLETT, Ch. J., HAIGHT, J., concurs with BRADLEY, J. PARKER, J., dissents, and LANDON, J., does not sit.

¶7Judgment affirmed. *495

/134/ny/489 · .json · Public domain