Helck v. Reinheimer
| Decision Date | 26 April 1887 |
| Parties | HELCK, Adm'r, etc., v. REINHEIMER and another, impleaded, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action to foreclose mortgage. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
John F. Anderson, for appellant.
T. F. Bush, for respondents.
This was an action to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, executed in the year 1873 by Jacob Reinheimer and his wife, Philipena, to the plaintiff's intestate, to secure the payment of money lent. None of the defendants answered except Henry Reinheimer and Henry Reinheimer, Jr. The execution of the mortgage, and the amount due thereon, were not disputed; but the two defendants who answered set up as a defense that, at the time of the execution of the mortgage, the mortgagor, Jacob Reinheimer, had no title to the mortgaged premises, and had acquired none since; that in 1864 he had conveyed said premises to the defendant, Henry Reinheimer, in trust for the benefit of said Philipena and the heirs of said Jacob; and that said Henry still owned them for the purposes of the trust; and they demanded as relief that the complaint be dismissed, and that the premises be adjudged free from the lien of said mortgage. The plaintiff them amended his complaint, and alleged that the trust set up in the answer had terminated; that the deed was void; and demanded, in addition to the judgment of foreclosure, that the alleged trust deed be adjudged null and void. The same answer was then made to the amended complaint, and the issues were tried before the court.
No question of fact was involved, but only the construction and effect of the deed from Jacob Reinheimer and wife to Henry Reinheimer, given in 1864; the defendants contending that it created a valid trust, and that the mortgage created no lien, and the plaintiff insisting that the deed was of no effect.
Neither of the parties made any objection to the trial of this issue in the foreclosure suit. If the objection had been raised that the defendants claimed under a title paramount to the mortgage, it would, according to some of the cases cited, have been the duty of the court to refuse to try that issue. It is not necessary to decide that question now, but, if that course had been taken, the judgment rendered would have had no effect upon the rights of either party, so far as the question of the validity or effect of the trust deed is concerned. But, instead of taking the objection, both parties submitted their rights, in that regard, to the adjudication of the court. The court, at special term, decided that the deed of September, 1864, to Henry Reinheimer, and the contract therein recited, were intended as a marriage settlement for the benefit of the children of the marriage between said Philipena Reinheimer, as well as for the said Philipena, and created a valid implied trust for the benefit of said children, and a power in trust in favor of said Henry; and that the mortgage to plaintiff's intestate conveyed no interest in the mortgaged premises; and accordingly rendered judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs. The general term, on appeal from the judgment, decided that the question of the validity and effect of the trust deed should not have been tried in this action, the interests of those claiming under that deed not being subsequent to the mortgage, but being adverse to it; and that the complaint should be dismissed, with costs, as to the two defendants who had answered, but without any decision on the merits; and that as to the other defendants the usual decree of foreclosure should be granted. Judgment was entered in conformity with this decision, containing a provision that the judgment should not prejudice any parties who might be interested under the construction of the trust deed, or involving its validity or effect.
We do not concur in the view taken by the court at general term. If the defendants had claimed that they had been improperly made parties defendant, because their rights were paramount and not subsequent to the mortgage, and could not properly be litigated in this action, it might, as before stated, have been proper to dismiss the complaint with costs, as to them, for that reason. But in this case, instead of taking any such ground, they themselves, in their answer, set up their claims under the trust deed, and asked that they be adjudicated upon, and demanded judgment that the mortgaged premises be freed from the mortgage, and that it be discharged of record; and on the trial both parties litigated the question, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rheinberger v. Security Life Ins. Co. of America
...hardly be permitted to claim now that it was not able to introduce evidence to support its alleged adverse interest. See Helck v. Reinheimer, 105 N.Y. 470, 12 N.E. 37, cited with approval in Sielbeck v. Grothman, 248 Ill. 435, 439, 94 N.E. 67, 21 Ann.Cas. 229. If plaintiff in the foreclosur......
-
Sielbeck v. Grothman
...are estopped from setting up collaterally such prior interest (Chicago Theological Seminary v. Gage, 103 Ill. 175;Helck v. Reinheimer, 105 N. Y. 470, 12 N. E. 37; 2 Jones on Mortgages [4th Ed.] § 1589). The bill should allege the title of the mortgagors in the mortgaged premises. 1 Wiltsie ......
-
Southard v. Smith
...and proofs, because there can be no foundation in the complaint for a decree upon a question of paramount title.” Helck v. Reinheimer, 105 NY 470, 12 N.E. 37; Wolfinger v. Betz, 66 Iowa, 594, was an action to foreclose a mortgage, Betz defended upon the ground that he had foreclosed a mortg......
-
Bolling v. Pace
... ... appeared, and having actually litigated the issue in this ... form, will be bound by the decree." Wilts. Mortg. Forec ... § 193; Helck v. Reinheimer, 105 N.Y. 470, 12 N.E ... 37; Barnard v. Onderdonk, 98 N.Y. 158, 163; ... Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 N.Y. 427, 435. The parties ... ...