Mead v. York

Decided July 15, 1852

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1852-07-15

, This was a bill in equity, filed in the late court of chancery, for a decree for the cancellation of a mortgage, given by Smith and wife to one Snow, and by him assigned to York, the defendant. Held: that the mortgagee cannot hold the mortgage as security for any claim which he has against the mortgagor, beyond the sum specifically secured by the mortgage, when objections are interposed by bond fide judgment-creditors.

Relies on Champney v. . Coope

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1922

1 district · 7 state decisions

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 →

Gridley, J.

¶1— The principle of this case is entirely covered by the doctrine established in Truscott v. King (ante 147), decided in this court, at the present term. It appears, that the original mortgage was long since paid up and extinguished, and though, it is probable, that the defendant relied on the assignment of the mortgage to him as security for such indorsements as he should make for the mortgagor, I do not find evidence of any explicit agreement between him and the mortgagor, Smith, that, after it was satisfied, it should be revived, and stand as security for such indorsements. And if there was evidence of such an agreement, it would not have the effect *423to revive the mortgage, under the decision in Truscott v. King. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

¶2Judgment affirmed.1

¶3 See Champney v. Coope, 32 N. Y. 543 ; Hubbell v. Blakeslee, 71 Ibid. 63.