Case ID: misc_49/html/0154-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Leventritt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Forbes, Plaintiff, v. Katharine F. Reynard, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    January, 1906.)
    Mortgages — Payment, release or satisfaction — Persons entitled to discharge mortgages.
    Principal and agent — Authority to appoint.
    Trusts — Execution and administration of trusts — Discretion of trustee— Delegation of powers: Following trust property — Duty of persons dealing with trustee.
    A certificate of satisfaction of a mortgage, executed pursuant to a power of attorney given to “ receive all sums of money * * * now due or hereafter at any time to become due to me as guardian and trustee of said minors, including all principal and interest of any bonds and mortgages * * * and upon payment of any mortgage * * * to execute and acknowledge sufficient certificates to discharge the ■ same of record ”, operates as a valid discharge though the power of attorney attempts to confer certain other powers and duties udiich the guardian and trustee could not legally delegate; and, where the amount due upon the mortgage is paid to the person authorized to receive it, the mortgagor is not bound to see to the application made by the guardian of the sum so paid. (Real Property Law, § 88.)
    This action is by the assignee of a vendee in a contract for the sale of real estate to recover damages for the vendor’s alleged breach of contract.
    
      The contract provided that, on a day named therein, the defendant-vendor, on receiving from the vendee the sum of $31,000, should execute a full covenant and warranty deed conveying the said premises to the said vendee or his assigns, free from all incumbrances except a mortgage of $20,000.
    The -plaintiff claimed that the defendant, on the day fixed for closing title, August 31, 1904, could not convey the premises in accordance with the terms of the contract; that, on said date the premises were incumbered, not only by the said mortgage of $20,000, but also by a mortgage to secure the payment of $14,500.
    The said $14,500 mortgage was made on or about the 11th day of February, 1878, by Joseph Finch and Marion W., his wife, to Eliza Oothout Siebert, to secure the payment of the said sum on the 11th day of February, 1883. On March 19, 1883, the mortgagee assigned said mortgage to Louis P. Siebert, as guardian of Louis P. Siebert, Jr., John O. Siebert and Sophie Siebert.
    On or about April 4, 1883, the said Louis P. Siebert, as. guardian of the said infants, made and executed to Edward Oothout a power of attorney authorizing the said Edward Oothout, among other things, to “ receive all sums of money * * * now due or hereafter at any time to become due to me as guardian and trustee of said minors, including all principal and interest of any bonds and mortgages * * * and upon payment of any mortgage * * * to execute and acknowledge sufficient certificates to discharge the same of record.” The power of attorney and the mortgage and assignment were duly recorded in the registrar’s office of ¡New York county.
    On March 30, 1889, there was duly recorded in the registrar’s office of New York county a certificate of satisfaction of the said mortgage for $14,500, executed by the said Edward Oothout, attorney in fact.
    The plaintiff claimed that, because the guardian by the power of attorney attempted to delegate to the attorney certain duties which could not be lawfully delegated, the power of attorney was void, and that, therefore, the lien of the mortgage was not discharged of record.
    
      Leon Kronfeld, for plaintiff.
    Thomas F. Keogh and Francis W. Judge, for defendant.
   Leventritt, J.

The receipt of the principal of an overdue mortgage and the execution of a certificate of satisfaction thereof are mere mechanical or ministerial acts, and the rule is that a guardian or other trustee may delegate the performance of such acts to others. Gates v. Dudgeon, 173 N. Y. 426; Myers v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 99 id. 1; Perry Trusts, § 409. The power of attorney given by Louis P. Siehert as guardian and trustee to Edward Oothout delegates express authority to receive all sums of money *" * * now due or hereafter at any time to become due to me as guardian and trustee of said minors, including all principal and interest of any bonds and mortgages * * * and upon payment of any mortgage * * * to execute and acknowledge sufficient certificates to discharge the same of record.” The fact that the power of attorney attempts to confer certain other powers and duties, which the guardian could not delegate, does not invalidate the entire instrument. The principal of the mortgage in question having been paid to a person authorized to receive it, the mortgagor was not bound to see to the application made by the guardian of the sum paid. Real Prop. Law (Laws of 1896, Chap. 547), § 88. It is obvious, therefore, that the certificate of satisfaction executed by Edward Oothout as attorney-in-fact of Louis P. Siehert, guardian, operated as a valid discharge of this mortgage. The plaintiff not only did not discharge the burden which rested upon him to establish the claim that, in the collection of the mortgage, the attorney-in-fact exercised certain discretionary powers which no one but the guardian could exercise (Greenblatt v. Hermann, 144 N. Y. 13, 18; Moser v. Cochrane, 107 id. 35; Maupin Mark. Tit. Real Est. 317), but he presented no evidence to that end.

There must be judgment for the defendant.

Judgment for defendant.