Ladd v. Stevenson
| Decision Date | 29 January 1889 |
| Citation | 19 N.E. 842,112 N.Y. 325 |
| Parties | LADD v. STEVENSON et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, First department.
On or about the 1st day of March, 1878, the defendant Willett agreed in writing to repay to the plaintiff, William J. Ladd, a loan of $12,500 in equal monthly installments, and in a certain contingency mentioned ‘to give said Ladd satisfactory security for the repayment of said loan by installments above mentioned, or to pay the same forth with in cash.’ The contingency upon which the security was to be given happened. The agreement contained nothing showing what kind of security was to be given, and there was no written stipulation to give security upon real estate. On the 22d day of May, 1878, the plaintiff caused the agreement to be recorded as a mortgage in the office of the register of the city and county of New York, and on the next day commenced an action in the supreme court against Willett, in his complaint alleging the execution of the agreement; that the defendant had failed to repay the entire loan, or to give satisfactory or any security for the repayment of the same; and that it was the intention and purpose of the agreement that the defendant should mortgage to the plaintiff all his right, title, and interest in certain real estate mentioned in the complaint; and demanding judgment that he specifically perform the agreement, and execute a mortgage upon the real estate mentioned for the repayment of the loan, with interest; and that he, and all persons claiming under him subsequent to the commencement of the action, be barred and foreclosed of all right, claim, lien, or equity of redemption in the premises; and that the premises be decreed to be sold according to law, and out of the proceeds of such sale the plaintiff be paid the sum of $12,500, with interest thereon, besides costs. On the same day he filed a notice of the pendency of the action, in which it was stated that the object of the action was to obtain judgment against Willett that he ‘specifically perform the said agreement, and that he execute a mortgage upon the following described real estate and property for the repayment of $12,500, with interest, by installments, as specified in said contract, and that the premises in said county to be affected herein are described as follows:’ then follows a description of 20 pieces of real estate in the city of New York. In January, 1879, Willett answered the complaint, denying any breach of the agreement, and setting up various payments on account. No steps were taken in the trial of the issues thereafter until February, 1884, when the cause was tried. Willett at that time had no personal interest in the real estate, as he had disposed of all his property, and was insolvent, and he actually directed his attorneys to let the case go by default, but this they did not do. Some months later the trial judge decided the case in favor of the plaintiff, and on January 15, 1885, judgment was entered upon his decision directing the sale of the real estate in question for the purpose of satisfying the amount due under the agreement above mentioned, besides costs; and on the 15th day of April, 1885, in pursuance of that judgment, the plaintiff advertised the property for sale. Between May, 1878, and February, 1884, an action was brought for the partition of the same real estate in the city of New York, and notice of the pendency of that action was filed June 9, 1879. Willett was a party to that action, but Ladd was not. The action was carried to judgment and sale, and in 1881 the property was conveyed by referee's deed to Vernon R. Stevenson. Willett's share of the money received by the referee went to pay off a $20,000 mortgage, which was prior to plaintiff's contract. In 1882, Stevenson conveyed the same premises by a full covenant deed to Samuel Glover, and in 1883 Glover conveyed them by full covenant deed to the defendants Goelet, who are now the owners...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Ownbey
......1069; Donnelly. v. McArdle, 14 A.D. 217, 219, 220, 43 N.Y.S. 560; Kiefer v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 55. Hun. 604, 8 N.Y.S. 230; Ladd v. Stevenson, . 112 N.Y. 325, 19 N.E. 842, 8 Am. St. Rep. 748. . . The. petition of the defendant and rule to show cause have been. ......
-
Kollmeyer v. Willis
...of 'the idea that a judgment should not be set aside arbitrarily, capriciously or without good cause . . ..'11 Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325, 19 N.E. 842, 844(2); Bardach v. Mayfair-Flushing Corp., 49 Misc.2d 380, 267 N.Y.S.2d 609, 612(2); In re Board of Directors of Automatic Chain Co., ......
-
Freeman v. Wood
......Williams, 36 N.J.Eq. 627; Weslay. Church v. Moore, 10 Pa.St. 273; Corrothers v. Board. of Education of Clinton Dist., 16 W.Va. 527; Ladd v. Stevenson, 19 N.E. 842, 8 Am. St. Rep. 748; Jones v. Newhall, 115 Mass. 224, 15 Am. Rep. 97. . . A court. of equity may ......
-
Cassini v. Barnosky (In re Cassini), 2018–00747
...of substantial justice" ( Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v. Liotti, 81 A.D.3d 884, 885, 917 N.Y.S.2d 667 ; see Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325, 332, 19 N.E. 842 ; Katz v. Marra, 74 A.D.3d 888, 890, 905 N.Y.S.2d 204 ), "[a] court's inherent power to exercise control 120 N.Y.S.3d 136 over it......
-
Table of Cases
..., 68 AD3d 824, 891 NYS2d 428 (2d Dept 2009), §38:56 Lacs v. Everard’s Breweries , 170 NY 444, 63 NE 448 (1902), §25:50 Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 NY 325, 19 NE2d 842 (1889), §38:32 Lader v. Sherman , 58 AD3d 809, 872 NYS2d 178 (2d Dept 2009), §38:53 Laduke v. State Farm Insurance Co. , 158 AD2d......
-
Post-Verdict Proceedings
...interests of justice. [ McCarthy v. Port of New York Authority, 21 AD2d 125, 127, 248 NYS2d 713, 715 1st Dept 1964); see Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 NY 325, 19 NE2d 842 (1889).] As a general proposition, the interests of justice would seem poorly served if any party has been deprived of a fair t......
-
Post-Verdict Proceedings
...interests of justice. [ McCarthy v. Port of New York Authority, 21 AD2d 125, 127, 248 NYS2d 713, 715 1st Dept 1964); see Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 NY 325, 19 NE2d 842 (1889).] As a general proposition, the interests of justice would seem poorly served if any party has been deprived of a fair t......
-
Post-Verdict Proceedings
...interests of justice. [ McCarthy v. Port of New York Authority, 21 AD2d 125, 127, 248 NYS2d 713, 715 1st Dept 1964); see Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 NY 325, 19 NE2d 842 (1889).] As a general proposition, the interests of justice would seem poorly served if any party has been deprived of a fair t......