Case ID: how-pr_7/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hand, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Westgate agt. Handlin.
    Notice of sale by advertisement under a power given in a mortgage, was given to take place on the 7th of March, which was on Sunday. Personal service of this notice was made on the 23d of February. The sale was postponed to the 15th March, and published three weeks, and personal service thereof made on the mortgagor on the 1st of March, Held, a valid sale.
    One day included and one excluded in these cases.
    Notice of a postponement of a mortgage sale by advertisement need not be served personally.
    
      Essex Special Term, January 1853.
    
      Ejectment for land sold, on a mortgage (given by defendant to plaintiff) by advertising. It appeared by the affidavits, that the notice, dated December 8th, 1851, of a sale on the 7th March (which was Sunday) 1852, was published twelve weeks, and a notice of a postponement of the sale to the 15th of March, and dated on the 23d February 1852, ivas also published three weeks. On the 3d day of February, the notice was served personally on the defendant, and also on the 1st day of March the same notice and also notice of postponement, were served personally upon the defendant. The plaintiff bid off the premises.
    It was objected that the sale was invalid.
    A. B. Waldo, for Plaintiff
    
    P. Butler, for Defendant.
    
   Hand, Justice.

The postponement was regular, notwithstanding the day first named for the sale was on Sunday (Sayles vs. Smith, 12 Wend. 57; and see 1 R. S. 675). The notice to the mortgagor was sufficient. More than fourteen days notice of the sale', as first appointed, was served upon him; and I do not understand the statute to require personal service of a notice of postponement; publication in the newspaper seems sufficient. Beside, here was personal service of notice of the postponement on the first, for the fifteenth, which would have been sufficient, if the service had been necessary (Columbia Turnpike vs. Haywood, 10 Wend. 422; Dayton agt. McIntyre, 5 How. Pr. R. 117; Laws of 1844, ch. 346, § 1; Charles vs. Stansbury, 3 John. R. 261; 2 Ch. G. Pr. 774-5; Lester vs. Garland, 15 Ves. 248, and notes; Pellew vs. Crawford, 9 B. & C. 134; Handy vs. Ryle, id. 603; 2 R. S. 546; Laws of 1844, ch. 346; and see Miller vs. Hull, 4 Denio, 104). Judgment for plaintiff.