117 N.Y. 257, Gifford v. Corrigan

Citation:117 N.Y. 257
Party Name:SILAS D. GIFFORD, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. MICHAEL AUGUSTINE CORRIGAN, as Executor, etc., Appellant.
Case Date:November 26, 1889
Court:New York Court of Appeals

Page 257

117 N.Y. 257

SILAS D. GIFFORD, as Receiver, etc., Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL AUGUSTINE CORRIGAN, as Executor, etc., Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

November 26, 1889

Argued October 16, 1889.

Page 258

COUNSEL

Edward C. Boardman for appellant. The release by the executor of McEvoy of McCloskey from the covenant of assumption contained in the deed from McEvoy to McCloskey discharged the latter from all liability thereunder. (Whiting v. Gearty, 14 Hun, 500; Kelly v. Roberts, 40 N.Y. 432, 440; Douglas v. Wells, 18 Hun, 88; Pardee v. Treat, 82 N.Y. 389; Burr v. Beers, 24 id. 179.) The liability of the assuming grantee to the mortgagee cannot be upheld. (Cumberland v. Coddrington, 3 Johns. Ch. 226; Bleeker v. Bingham, 3 Paige, 246; Curtis v. Tyler, 9 id. 432; Halsey v. Reed, Id. 446; Torrey v. Bank of Orleans, Id. 649; King v. Whitely, 10 id. 465; Marsh v. Pike, Id. 595; Blyer v. Mulholland, 2 Sandf. Ch. 478; Cornell v. Prescott, 2 Barb. 16; Vail v. Foster, 4 N.Y. 312; Flagg v. Munger, 9 id. 483; Trotter v. Hughes, 12 id. 74; Hartley v. Harrison, 24 id. 170; Burr v. Beers, Id. 178; Bentley v. Vanderheyden, 35 id. 677; Ricard v. Sanderson, 41 id. 179; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 id. 233; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 id. 253; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 id. 280, 283; Campbell v. Smith, 71 id. 26; Comstock v. Drohan, Id. 9; Calvor v. Davies, 73 id. 211; Paine v. Jones, 76 id. 274; Marshall v. Davis, 78 id. 414; Pardee v. Treat, 82 id. 385; Hand v. Kennedy, 83 id. 149; Slauson v. Watkins, 86 id. 597; Carter v. Holahan, 92 id. 498; Bennett v. Bates, 94 id. 354; Crowe v. Lewin, 95 id. 423; Fairchild v. Lynch, 99 id. 359; Wilbur v. Warren, 104 id. 192; Wilcox v. Campbell, 106 id. 325; Cole v. Cole, 110 id. 630; Cole v. Malcom, 66 id. 363, 366; Acer v. Hotchkiss, 97 id. 395, 403; Twombly v. Cassidy, 82 id. 155, 158; Jumel v. Jumel, 7 Paige, 591; Roe v. Baker, 82 N.Y. 435; Simpson v. Brown, 68 id. 240; Johnson v. Morgan, Id. 496; Merrill v. Green, 55 id. 270; Wheat v. Rice,

Page 259

97 id. 302; Mellen v. Whipple, 1 Gray, 317.)This court has, in several cases, relieved the assuming grantee from liability under the covenant of assumption. (Flagg v. Munger, 9 N.Y. 483; Kilmer v. Smith, 77 id. 227; Judson v. Dada, 79 id. 373; Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 id. 30; A. S. Inst. v. Burdick, 87 id. 40; Dey Ermand v. Chamberlin, 88 id. 658; Crowe v. Lewin, 95 id. 423.)

Ralph E. Prime for respondents. There was a delivery of the deed. (Ten Eyck v. Perkins, 2 Wend. 308; Church v. Gilman, 15 id. 656; Lady Superior v. McNamara, 3 Barb. 375; Brown v. Austin, 35 id. 341; Knowls v. Barnhart, 71 N.Y. 474; Shrader v. Banker, 65 Barb. 608.) There was an acceptance of the deed. (105 N.Y. 225; Brooks v. A. E. Co., 14 Hun, 368; Dunlap's Paley on Agency, 172.) The release was not bona fide. (Trustees v. Anderson, 30 N. J. Eq. 366; Thomas on Mortgages [2d ed.] 402, § 604.) The assumption clause and its obligations were inviolable and the release was ineffectual. (Ranney v. McMullen, 5 Abb. N. C. 246, 259. Hartley v. Harrison, 24 N.Y. 170, 172; Gurnsey v. Rogers, 47 id. 242; Douglass v. Wells, 18 Hun, 88; Simson v. Brown, 6 id. 251; Bay v. Williams, 112 Ill. 91; Thomas on Mortgages, § 763; Whitney v. Gearty, 14 Hun, 501; Berkshire Ins. Co. v. Hutching, 100 Ind. 496; Davis v. Galloway, 30 id. 112; Gilbert v. Sanderson, 56 Iowa, 349; Dunham v. Bishoff, 47 Ind. 211; Carnahan v. Tousey, 93 id. 561; Kelly v. Roberts, 40 N.Y. 432; Jones on Mortgages, § 84, 763; Gifford v. Corrigan, 105 N.Y. 223, 227, 228, 229.)

FINCH, J.

On a previous appeal we determined in this case that the record of the deed to the defendant's testator, McCloskey, by which the grantee assumed the payment of plaintiff's mortgage, was not, under the circumstances, sufficient proof of the delivery and acceptance of the deed. As the case now stands the effect of that record is fortified by direct proof of the delivery and strong circumstantial evidence

Page 260

of the acceptance. Both facts are now explicitly found by the trial court, but the appellant again denies the sufficiency of the proof.

The mortgage was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
50 practice notes
  • 147 N.Y. 456, Mygatt v. Coe
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 26 Noviembre 1895
    ...Poidevin, 19 Abb. [ N. C.] 123; Page 460 Hart v. Lyon, 90 N.Y. 663; 1 R. S. 748, § 2; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 257, 262-265; Van Schaick v. T. A. R. Co., 38 N.Y. 346; Barlow v. Myers, 64 N.Y. 41; Hand v. Kennedy, 83 N.Y. 149; Thompson v. Simpson, 128 N.Y. ......
  • 128 S.W. 642 (Tex.Civ.App. 1910), Hoeldtke v. Horstman
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals of Texas Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 31 Marzo 1910
    ...affirmative of that proposition: Starbird v. Cranston, 24 Colo. 20, 48 P. 652; Haas v. Dudley, 30 Or. 355, 48 P. 168; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 257, 22 N.E. 756, 6 L.R.A. 610, 15 Am.St.Rep. 524; Bank v. Chalmers, 144 N.Y. 432, 39 N.E. 331; Iowa Loan & Trust Co. v. Schnose, 19 S.D. 2......
  • 47 S.W.2d 951 (Ky.App. 1932), Anglo-American Mill Co. v. Kentucky Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 22 Marzo 1932
    ...63 Colo. 288, 165 P. 609, L. R. A. 1918A, 999; Hill v. Hoeldtke, 104 Tex. 594, 142 S.W. 871, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 672; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 257, 22 N.E. 756, 6 L. R. A. 610, 15 Am. St. Rep. 508; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U.S. 610, 10 S.Ct. 494, 33 L.Ed. 667; Elliott v. Sackett, 108 U.S......
  • 158 N.Y. 431, Embler v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 21 Marzo 1899
    ...139; Hutchings v. Miner, 46 N.Y. 456; Glen v. H. M. L. Ins. Co., 56 N.Y. 379; Page 433 Roberts v. Ely, 113 N.Y. 128; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 262; Durnherr v. Rau, 135 N.Y. 219; French v. Vix, 143 N.Y. 90; Wager v. Link, 134 N.Y. 127.)Whatever view might be taken with regard to the rul......
  • Free signup to view additional results
50 cases
  • 147 N.Y. 456, Mygatt v. Coe
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 26 Noviembre 1895
    ...Poidevin, 19 Abb. [ N. C.] 123; Page 460 Hart v. Lyon, 90 N.Y. 663; 1 R. S. 748, § 2; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 257, 262-265; Van Schaick v. T. A. R. Co., 38 N.Y. 346; Barlow v. Myers, 64 N.Y. 41; Hand v. Kennedy, 83 N.Y. 149; Thompson v. Simpson, 128 N.Y. ......
  • 128 S.W. 642 (Tex.Civ.App. 1910), Hoeldtke v. Horstman
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals of Texas Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 31 Marzo 1910
    ...affirmative of that proposition: Starbird v. Cranston, 24 Colo. 20, 48 P. 652; Haas v. Dudley, 30 Or. 355, 48 P. 168; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 257, 22 N.E. 756, 6 L.R.A. 610, 15 Am.St.Rep. 524; Bank v. Chalmers, 144 N.Y. 432, 39 N.E. 331; Iowa Loan & Trust Co. v. Schnose, 19 S.D. 2......
  • 47 S.W.2d 951 (Ky.App. 1932), Anglo-American Mill Co. v. Kentucky Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 22 Marzo 1932
    ...63 Colo. 288, 165 P. 609, L. R. A. 1918A, 999; Hill v. Hoeldtke, 104 Tex. 594, 142 S.W. 871, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 672; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 257, 22 N.E. 756, 6 L. R. A. 610, 15 Am. St. Rep. 508; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U.S. 610, 10 S.Ct. 494, 33 L.Ed. 667; Elliott v. Sackett, 108 U.S......
  • 158 N.Y. 431, Embler v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 21 Marzo 1899
    ...139; Hutchings v. Miner, 46 N.Y. 456; Glen v. H. M. L. Ins. Co., 56 N.Y. 379; Page 433 Roberts v. Ely, 113 N.Y. 128; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 262; Durnherr v. Rau, 135 N.Y. 219; French v. Vix, 143 N.Y. 90; Wager v. Link, 134 N.Y. 127.)Whatever view might be taken with regard to the rul......
  • Free signup to view additional results