Case ID: how-pr_58/html/0183-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Westbrook, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

N. Y. SUPREME COURT.
    John P. Kipp agt. Peter Delamater et al.
    
    
      Consolidation of actions — when motion for, should, not be granted—Mortgage foreclosure.
    
    Where three actions of foreclosure had been commenced, the defendants being the same in each, the mortgage in the first action covering fifty acres of land which, after the execution of this mortgage and the two mortgages affected by the second action, had been sold to L. D., one of the defendants; the two mortgages in the second action covered 150 acres, embracing the lands affected by the mortgage in the first action; the mortgage in the third action covered 100 acres, being part of the land affected by the mortgages in the first and second action, and excluding the portion sold to the defendant L. D.; on motion to consolidate the three actions:
    
      Held, that the motion could not be granted for the following reasons: ■ First. The authorities are against it (6 Abbotts New Cases, 69).
    
      Second. The proceedings are, in rerun, against different pieces of property, and there is no reason why one parcel should bear burdens in the way of costs which belong to another.
    
      Third. Rights of individual defendants differ, and one defendant should not bear that which belongs to another.
    
      Ulster Special Term,, November 8, 1879.
    Motion to consolidate three actions of foreclosure.
    The mortgage in the first action covered fifty acres of land, which, after the execution of this mortgage and the two mortgages affected by the second action, had been sold to the defendant, Lewis Delamater. The second mortgage in the second action covered 150 acres, embracing the land affected by the mortgage in the first action. The mortgage in the third action covered 100 acres, being part of the land affected by the mortgages in the first and second actions and excluding the portion sold to the defendant, Lewis Ddlamater.
    The defendants are the same in each action.
    
      
      8. L. Magoun, for motion,
    cited sections 817, 818, 819, Code of Civil Procedure and 2 Story’s Eq. Jur., 1233.
    
      Cornelius Esselstyn, for plaintiff,
    opposed, cited 2 Waits Pr., 555; Grant agt. Spencer; Voorhee’s Code [6th ed.], 336, note f; Thomas on Mortgages, 268, 269; Bech agt. Ruggles, 6 Abb. New Cases, 69.
   Westbrook, J.

I do not see -how this motion can be granted.

1st. The authorities are against it (6 Abb. N. C., 69). 2d. The proceedings are in rem. against different pieces of property; and there is no reason why one parcel should bear burdens, in the way of costs, which belong to another. 3d. Eights of individual defendants differ, and one defendant should not bear that which belongs to another.

Motion denied.