49 N.Y. 626, Hale v. Omaha Nat. Bank

Citation:49 N.Y. 626
Party Name:SETH W. HALE, Appellant, v. THE OMAHA NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
Case Date:June 11, 1872
Court:New York Court of Appeals

Page 626

49 N.Y. 626

SETH W. HALE, Appellant,

v.

THE OMAHA NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

June 11, 1872

Argued May 27, 1872.

Page 627

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 628

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 629

COUNSEL

Edward T. Bartlett for the appellant. Equity will consider that done which ought to have been done. (1 Story's Eq., 64; 4 Bouvier's Ins., N., 3729; 1 Fonblanque Eq., b. 1, ch. 6, 8, 9, note; Crary v. Leslie, 3 Wheat., 578.) A lien by judgment is always subordinate to a prior equitable lien, whether of record or not, or executed or not. ( Finch v. Earl of Winchelsea, 1 P. Wms., 277; Burgh v. Franciss, 5 Bac. Abr., 41; Coote on Mort., 185; Willard's Eq. Ju., 443, 444; Langton v. Horton, 1 Hare, 549; Whitworth v. Gangain, 3 Id., 465; Ellis v. Tousley, 1 Paige, 284; Dwight v. Newell, 3 Comst., 187; Moyer v. Hinman, 3 Kern., 188.) Plaintiff, as assignee of the lessor, had a lien in equity upon the property. ( Wright v. Wright, 1 Vesey, 409, 411; Beckley v. Newland, 2 P. Wil., 182; Hobson v. Trevor, 2 Id., 191; Langton v. Horton, 1 Hare, 549; Case of Ship Warre, 8 Price, 269, n.; Curtis v. Auber, 1 Jac. & Wal., 506; Mitchell v. Winslow, 2 Story, 639; 2 Story Eq. Ju., § 1231, and cases cited; Cross on Liens, ch. 12, pp. 187, 188, 191, 192; Prebble v. Boghurst, 1 Swanstons, 309; Needham v. Smith, 4 Russell, 318; Randall v. Willis, 5 Vesey, 262, 274, 275; Simond v. Hibbert, 1 Russell & Mylne, 719; also, particularly, Seymour v. Canandaigua and Niagara Falls R. R. Co., 25 Barb., 284; Wood v. Lester, 29 Id., 145; Field v. The Mayor of New York, 2 Seld., 179; Stover v. Eyclesheimer, 3 Keyes, 620; 41 N.Y. 374; 1 Keyes, 199.) This equitable interest is sufficient to maintain trover. ( Van Bokkelin v. Ingersoll, 5 Wend., 315, and cases cited; Hendricks v. Decker, 35 Barb., 298, and cases cited.)

Lyman Tremain for the respondent. The complaint must state all facts which it is necessary for plaintiff to prove in order to make out his cause of action. (Code, § 142; Freeman v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 14 Abb., 398; Rodi v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 6 Bosw., 23; Allen v. Patterson, 7 N.Y. , 478; Brady v. Ryder, 10 N.Y. 363.) Otherwise it is demurable. (Code, § 144.) And a demurrer following the language of subdivision six is sufficient. ( White v. Brown, 14 How., 282;

Page 630

Haine v. Baker, 1 Seld., 357; Spear v. Downing, 34 Barb., 523.)The demurrer does not admit conclusions of law. ( Hall v. Bartlett, 9 Barb., 297; City of Buffalo v. Holloway, 7 N.Y. , 493; Kinnier v. Kinnier, 45 N.Y. 535.) Where allegations are contradictory, the demurrer only admits those the law adjudges to be true. ( Freeman v. Frank, 10 Abb., 370.) The clause in the lease under which plaintiff claims, is not available as a mortgage. (2 Bouv. Law Dict., 485; Hill. on Mort.; Butler v. Miller, 1 N.Y. [ 1 Com., 496, 500]; Brownell v. Hawkins, 4 Barb., 491, 492; Milliman v. Neher, 20 Barb., 37-40; Buskirk v. Cleveland, 41 Barb., 610, 612.) If construed as a mortgage it is void. ( Right v. Buckwell, 2 B. & A., 278; Gilbert on Uses, 116, 117; Jones v. Roe, 3 Term, 88; Williams v. Lucas, 2 Cop. Cases, 160; Williams v. M. Ins. Co., 4 Metc., 306; Otis v. Sill, 7 Barb., 102; Munsell v. Carey, 2 Cush., 50; Bernard v. Eaton, 2 Cush., 296; Garden v. McEwen, 19 N.Y. 123; Van Heusen v. Radcliff, 17 N.Y. 480, 482; Condenean v. Smith, 41 Barb...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP