Case ID: johns_9/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Limerick and another, against Voorhis.
    NEW YORK,
    May, 1812.
    Where money is loaned offiant to the^ct “ygl^seísfis' default ofpayment of interestbythe motgages‘"tupaya" is forever forajhVtf,’¡¡yZmh become absolute ami estat^in’thc that this court cannot regard any fngtein the mortgagor..
    THIS was an action of ejectment. The cause was tried at the Greene circuit, in 1811, before .Mr. Justice Spencer. The plaintiff proved that Alary Limerick, one of the lessors, was the widow, and the other lessor, the infant daughter of Isaac Limerick, deceased, who owned the premises in question, at the time of his decease, and that the defendant took possession after his death.
    The defendant produced a mortgage from Joseph Adams, under whom Isaac Limerick claimed, of the premises in question, in September, 1810, to the loan-officers of the county of Albany, to secure the payment of 200L which contained a covenant, on the part of Adams, that he, his heirs and assigns, should be absolutely barred from all equity of redemption, after 22 days after failure of the payment of the interest. It was proved that the interest which fell due on the first Tuesday of May, 1810, not being paid, the premises were advertised, under the act of the legislature, passed the 14th March, 1792, (sess. 15. c. 25.) and sold to Thomas Limerick, in September, 1810, This evidence was . . . . f objected to, as arising after issue joined, ana ought, therefore, to have been pleaded puis darrein continuance, but the judge overruled the objection. The counsel for the defendant then objected to the sufficiency of the evidence, because it did not appear that the loan-officers, in their advertisement of the sale, had pursued the directions of the act, but the judge overruled the objection, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, and. the jury found a verdict accordingly.
    A motion was made to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial* for the misdirection of thé judge.
    The case was submitted to the court, without argument.
   Per Curiam.

At the commencement of the suit, there was a a full and perfect title existing in the loan-officers. The 13th section of the act of the 14th March, 1792, {Lams, vol. 2. p. 288.) is decisive, and will not permit the court to regard any estate as existing in the mortgagor, after a default of 22 days from the 1st Tuesday in May, to pay the interest; for the statute declares that the loan-officer shall then be seised of an absolute indefeasible estate in the land so mortgaged, &c. and the mortgagor shall be utterly foreclosed and barred of all equity of redemption of the mortgaged premises,” &c. The default amounted, ipso facto, to an absolute foreclosure, and, consequently, a complete title exist-e£l out of the lessors, at the commencement of the suit.

Judgment for the defendant.