Weyh v. Boylan

Decided March 15, 1882

New York Supreme Court · decided 1882-03-15

Mortgage foreclosure—BemvaP,—Effect of lis pendens on subsequent pwrchaser—Code of Oivil Procedure, sections 765-1661. In an action to foreclose a mortgage a grantee, subsequent to the filing of the lis pendens, is bound by all the proceedings in the action to the same extent as if he were a party, and his equity of redemption is cut off by the decree. Where A. commenced an action against B. to foreclose a mortgage, and, after lis pendens filed, B. conveyed the premises to C., and thereafter B. died and 0. was made his administrator. The action was revived against C. as administrator of B., deceased: Held, that the action was properly revived, and C.’s equity of redemption cut off by the decree (Affirming 8. 0., 62 Sow., 397).

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1890

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1We are of the opinion that this case was properly disposed of by the court below for the reason assigned in the opinion of Barrett, J., which we adopt as our own.

¶2On looking into the judgment roll in the case produced on the argument, we find that the judgment was in fact given *73upon findings of fact against Michael S. Boylan, both as administrator of Felix Boylan and individually. This circum. stance is a controlling one, while the judgment record stands in its present form.

¶3jSfo irregularity appears upon which the judgment can be adjudged void, and even if there were an irregularity in the form it cannot be corrected by us to the prejudice of the plaintiff ; and would not be at special term on motion of Boylan for such a purpose as to enable him to assert that he, as a subsequent purchaser, is not affected by the lis pendens in the action.

¶4The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements.