Case ID: ny_62/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Andrews, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margaret E. De Forest, Respondent, v. Terence Farley et al. The Same v. The Same.
    (Argued June 1, 1875;
    decided June 8, 1875.)
    Il is not a valid objection to the title of a purchaser upon a judicial sale that the judgment upon which it was made was erroneous; if the court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and power to render the judgment, his title is not affected by defects in the proceedings which rendered the judgment irregular, and in consequence of which it might have been set aside or reversed.
    This was an action of foreclosure. The mortgaged premises were four lots in the city of New York, upon which were built six houses; there were numerous defendants as to whom the complaint contained the usual allegation that “ they had or claim some interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises ” subsequent to the mortgage. Christopher Keyes, the owner of the equity of redemption, was the only defendant who answered. On application to the court for judgment he asked that the judgment should provide for a sale of the entire premises, on the ground that it would be most beneficial to him and to the incumbrancers subsequent to plaintiff. The judgment directed “ that the entire mortgaged premises” be sold. The referee to whom it was referred sold the premises in six parcels, i. e., each house and lot separately. The parcel first sold brought sufficient to satisfy the judgment, with taxes and assessments. The third parcel sold was bid off by Thomas D. Stilson, and the fifth by Aaron Altmayer; both paid the ten per cent required, but refused to complete the sales on the grounds that they were void, as prior thereto sufficient of the mortgaged premises had been sold to satisfy the judgment, and that the sales were not made in accordance with the decree; also alleging various defects in the proceedings prior to judgment. Said purchasers then made motions to set aside the sales to them respectively, and these appeals are from orders of General Term affirming orders of Special Term denying such motions. Held, that the motions were properly denied; that the direction in the judgment to sell the entire premises could not, under the circumstances, be construed as prohibiting a sale in parcels; that as there were liens subsequent to the mortgage, the court had power to direct the sale of the entire premises, although unnecessary for the satisfaction of plaintiff’s claim (Livingston v. Mildrum, 19 N. Y., 440); and that it was to be conclusively presumed when the question arose thus collaterally, that the power was exercised upon proper proofs. The court laid down the general principle above stated.
    
      Eugene L. Burke for the purchasers appellant.
    
      Walter Edwards, Jr., for the respondent.
   Andrews, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Orders affirmed.