Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Edw. Ch. 249

Engle v. Underhill

New York Court of Chancery

Decided December 3, 1838

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1838-12-03

The complainant had taken two bonds and mortgages from the defendant, James E. Underhill, on a sale of real estate; and, on non-payment, had commenced an action on the bonds in the Superior court of the city of New-York, which was at issue and noticed for trial. After the action was commenced, the complainant filed his bill to foreclose the mortgages, and he now moved, upon affidavit, to be allowed to proceed in the action.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1903

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1838-12-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Vice-Chancellor :

¶1It was a common practice, be fore the passage of the revised statutes, for a mortgagee to proceed at law upon the bond at the same time that he proceeded in this court upon the mortgage. The revisers, however, very properly thought this unnecessary, and the statute now provides for a decree over against the mortgagor, as a substitute for a judgment at law, and takes away the remedy at law on the bond, while a bill of foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises is pending: “ unless authorized by the court of chancery(2 R. S. 191). Here is a discretion vested in this court, but which is not to be made use of, except in extraordinary cases. And the fact of deterioration in the value of the mortgaged premises by fire is not a sufficient ground to allow this complainant to work two remedies at the same time. He might, himself, have guarded against the loss by an insurance.

¶2Motion denied, with costs.

/3/edwch/249 · .json · Public domain