Maroney v. Boyle

• Decision Date: 27 February 1894
• Parties: MARONEY et al. v. BOYLE et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

141 N.Y. 462

36 N.E. 511

MARONEY et al.

v.BOYLE et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 27, 1894.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fifth department.

Action by John Maroney and Bridget Maroney against Margaret Boyle and Frank W. Davis, impleaded with others, to enforce an equitable lien for the purchase money of land. From a judgment of the general term (17 N. Y. Supp. 275) affirming the judgment of the special term dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

C. S. Cary, for appellants.

E. D. Northrup, for respondents.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by EARL, J.:

This action was brought to enforce the equitable lien of the plaintiffs for the purchase money of land conveyed by them to the defendant Margaret Boyle. The facts found at the special term are substantially as follows: That on the 20th day of August, 1887, the plaintiffs were the owners of the land described in the complaint, and on that day, for a valuable consideration, they sold and conveyed the land to the defendant Margaret Boyle, who then paid the them $500 of the purchase money, and gave to the plaintiff John Maroney her individual promissory note to secure the payment of the sum of $2,000, the balance of the purchase money; that at the same time the plaintiffs waived whatever equitable lien they had upon the land for purchase money; that Margaret Boyle was financially solvent, and the estate of Peter Boyle, deceased, the husband of Margaret Boyle, was also solvent, and the plaintiffs, in making the deed and accepting the note, relied upon the individual responsibility of Margaret Boyle; that, immediately after the delivery of the deed and note, Margaret Boyle entered into possession of the land, and on or about the 18th day of September, 1887, she, for the consideration of $2,000, executed to the defendant Edward D. Boyle a deed conveying the land to him; that immediately thereafter Edward entered into the possession of the land, and has ever since remained in the possession thereof; that in the months of March and April, 1888, he paid to the plaintiffs $500 in money, to apply both on the purchase money of the land due from him to Margaret Boyle and upon the purchase money thereof due from her to the plaintiffs, and about the same time he fully paid to her, out of his distributive share of his father's estate, the balance of the purchase money; that in purchasing the land, and paying for the same, Edward relied upon the belief and fact that the plaintiffs had waived their equitable lien thereon for purchase money; that, at the time of his purchase, Edward was financially solvent, but about the month of October, 1888, he became insolvent; that, by reason of indorsing the notes of Edward, his mother also became insolvent, and unable to pay the note held by John Maroney; that during the months of October, November, and December, 1888, and January and February, 1889, 10 judgments were recovered against Edward D. Boyle, and docketed in the office of the clerk of the county of Cattaraugus, and became liens upon his real property situated in Cattaraugus county, which judgments amounted, in all, to upward of $3,000; that about the months of April and May, 1889, and before the commencement of this action, the defendant Frank W. Davis purchased the several judgments from the plaintiffs and owners thereof, and paid to them the full amounts thereof in money, and received from them written assignments thereof, whereby he became, and still is, the owner of the same, except judgments so recovered by one Barry, by the First National Bank of Salamanca, and by two other persons; that Barry refused to sell his judgment to Davis, and caused an execution thereon to be issued to the sheriff, by virtue of which, after due notice of sale, he, on the 20th day of April, 1889, sold the land at public auction to Davis for the sum of $86.12, and thereupon executed to him his written certificate of sale in the form required by law, and Davis immediately paid the purchase price; that Davis never had any notice until after he had purchased the judgments and received the sheriff's certificate of sale, and had fully paid for the same, that the plaintiffs ever had any lien upon, or interest in, the land since they conveyed the same to Margaret Boyle; that the First National Bank of Salamanca caused executions upon its two judgments to be duly issued to the sheriff, who, by virtue thereof, and pursuant to due notice of sale, did, on the 27th day of May, 1889, sell the land to the defendant Charles I. Baker, at public auction, for the sum of $950, which Baker then paid to him, and thereupon the sheriff executed and delivered to him his certificate of sale thereof in the form required by law; that Baker never had any notice, until after he had purchased the land, paid the $950, and received the certificate, that the plaintiffs, or either of them, ever had any lien upon or interest in the land; that, at the time the plaintiffs sold and conveyed the land to Margaret Boyle and received her note, they believed and relied upon the then supposed fact that the note was, in effect, the note of Margaret Boyle, in her capacity of administratrix of the estate of Peter Boyle, effectual to bind that estate for its payment, and not her individual obligation. And the court dismissed the complaint as to the defendants Margaret Boyle, Baker, and Davis, who alone appear to have defendant the action, and ordered judgment to that effect. The plaintiffs appealed to the general term, and then to this court.

EARL, J., (after stating the facts.)

When Edward D. Boyle took his deed, he had notice of the plaintiffs' claim for unpaid purchase money, and therefore he did not acquire a better position than his grantor had. We think there can be no doubt that, as against him and his grantor, the plaintiffs had and retained their equitable lien. They took the promissory note of their grantee for the balance of the purchase money. It was not taken as payment, but simply as evidence of the amount due, and the time and mode of payment. It has been many times held that the grantor does not waive his equitable lien for the purchase money by simply taking the individual note, bond, or covenant of the grantee. He may rely, in taking such an individual obligation, upon the solvency and financial ability of the grantee, and he may not know that he has any lien upon the land, or actually rely upon any lien, and he may not have in contemplation the enforcement of the lien at any time; and yet, unless in such a case he...