Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Johns. Ch. 435

Titus v. Velie

New York Court of Chancery

Decided November 21, 1822

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1822-11-21

THE bill was filed by a second mortgagee, for a foreclosure and sale; and the.first and third mortgagees were made parties ; but they did not disclaim, nor was any release tendered by them, before suit. The third mortgagee now applied to have his costs paid i.o him, before the plaintiff was paid.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1883

1 district · 1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1822-11-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The Chancellor said, that the costs must be denied* emtil the plaintiff was first paid his debt and costs. In the case of Catlin v. Harned, the junior encumbrancer disclaimed, Here the defendant did not, and, of course, it must be presumed, that he would not have released to the plaintiff, had he been asked to do so. There is no good reason why he should have his costs, to be paid by the plaintiff, in case the fund falls short. In Kenebal v. Scrafton, the first mortgagee, who filed his bill, and foreclosed, had his costs, though the fund proved insufficient to pay all the mortgagees.

¶2Motion denied.

/6/johnsch/435 · .json · Public domain