Beck v. Sheldon
| Decision Date | 01 June 1932 |
| Parties | BECK v. SHELDON et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Action by George F. Beck against Marion C. Sheldon, impleaded with Theodore B. Sheldon, as general guardian of Carew and Octavia F. Sheldon. From a judgment of the Appellate Division [233 App. Div. 893, 251 N. Y. S. 821], affirming a judgment of County Court which decreed foreclosure and sale of mortgaged premises, defendant Marion C. Sheldon appeals.
Judgment of Appellate Division and County Court reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.
Edmund P. Cottle, of Buffalo, for appellant.
Louis W. Manchester and Alfred C. Ueck, both of Buffalo, for respondent.
The action is brought to foreclose a mortgage called the Roseville street mortgage, which was made on February 21, 1920, by defendant Marion C. Sheldon to Theodore B. Sheldon, as guardian of Carew and Octavia F. Sheldon, to secure the payment of $3,333.33, and assigned on November 27, 1923, by Sheldon, as guardian, to the plaintiff. The mortgagee is the mortgagor's father. He had been her guardian until she became of age on January 18, 1918. The defense is lack of consideration.
Marion C. Sheldon, her brother Carew, and her sister Octavia each owned an undivided one-twelfth interest in the Roseville street property. They had each owned a one-third interest in a Main street mortgage for $5,000, but Marion had sold her interest when she came of age. Title to this mortgage was in Theodore B. Sheldon, as general guardian. It was deposited with his surety as such general guardian for its protection.
On February 21, 1920, Sheldon took an assignment of the Main street mortgage, executed by him as general guardian of Carew and Octavia F. Sheldon, from Buffalo to Roscoe, Sullivan county, N. Y., where Marion was teaching school. He also took the bond and mortgage in suit and an assignment of the Main street mortgage to himself individually ready for execution by Marion. At his request she executed the mortgage in suit. She says he told her it was to be security for his bond as guardian; that she was not to pay anything on it. At the same time he delivered to her the assignment of the Main street mortgage, and she executed the assignment thereof to him individually. This transaction had on its face the appearance of trading one mortgage for another coupled with the assignment to Theodore B. Sheldon, individually, of Marion's interest in the Main street mortgage. Reduced to its substance, it amounted to a transfer to Theodore B. Sheldon, individually, of the Main street mortgage from himself as general guardian, through the medium of the assignment to Marion. He assigned the mortgage to her, and she assigned it back to him. This was a mere shifting of securities.
When we come to the Roseville street mortgage, it follows that the mortgagor received nothing for it, except a gesture, whereby Sheldon tendered her one assignment and took back another, without permitting her to understand the action or exercise an independent judgment in the matter. Sheldon received the proceeds from the sale of both mortgages. Marion received nothing.
If Sheldon, as guardian, had foreclosed the Roseville street mortgage, Marion might have pleaded want of consideration as a defense. She might have shown that the plan or scheme of her father was to get title to the Main street mortgage in himself and to get her to execute the Roseville street mortgage as well; that she became a mere conduit for transferring the record title of the Main street...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Apponline.Com, Inc.
...adversary proceeding. Lapis Enters. Inc. v. Int'l Blimpie Corp., 84 A.D.2d 286, 445 N.Y.S.2d 574 (2d Dep't 1981) and Beck v. Sheldon, 259 N.Y. 208, 181 N.E. 360 (1932) are of no assistance as the cases fail to even indicate whether notes were transferred, let alone whether the notes qualifi......
-
Tulis v. M.e.-R.e. Holding, LLC (In re Barnett)
...Paribas Mortg. Corp., 949 F. Supp. 2d at 502 (quoting Squire v. Greene, 52 N.Y.S. 1013, 1017-18 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)); Beck v. Sheldon, 181 N.E. 360, 361 (N.Y. 1932); Kommel v. Herb-Gner Constr. Co., 176 N.E. 413, 415 (N.Y. 1931). On the other hand, where there is an estoppel certificate "......
-
Lapis Enterprises, Inc. v. International Blimpie Corp.
...always subject to the defense existing between the original parties" (Ingraham v. Disborough, 47 N.Y. 421, 423; see, also, Beck v. Sheldon, 259 N.Y. 208, 181 N.E. 360). Under New York law, a cause of action for constructive fraud accrues at the time of commission while a cause of action for......
-
In re Levine
...mortgage takes subject to any defenses existing in favor of the mortgagor which existed against the mortgagee/assignor. Beck v. Sheldon, 259 N.Y. 208, 181 N.E. 360 (1932); American Guild of Richmond, Virginia v. Damon, 186 N.Y. 360, 78 N.E. 1081 (1906); Davis v. Bechstein, 69 N.Y. 440 (1877......