Case ID: ny_260/html/0258-01.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

330 Bleecker Street Corporation, Respondent, v. Mutual Tile Corporation, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
    (Argued October 26, 1932;
    decided November 22, 1932.)
    
      Albert P. Singman and Leo J. Linder for appellant.
    All persons interested in the subject of the suit and its result should be made parties, for the reason that it is the aim of equity to do complete justice and to settle the rights of all persons interested in the subject of the suit, thereby preventing further litigation between them. (Sherman v. Parrish, 53 N. Y. 483; Hubbard v. Eames, 22 Barb. 597; Turner v. Conant, 18 Abb. N. Cas. 160; Reid v. Vanderheyden, 5 Cow. 719; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige, 15; Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 563; Tonnelle v. Hall, 3 Abb. Pr. 205; Waring v. Waring, 3 Abb. Pr. 246; Osterhoudt v. Supervisors of Ulster, 98 N. Y. 239.) . Unless the first mortgagee is made a party to the second mortgage foreclosure action the mechanic’s lienor will lose a substantial property right. (McDermott v. Lawyers Mortgage Co., 232 N. Y. 336.)
    
      Marcus Klein and Benjamin A. Hartstein for respondent.
    New parties must be brought in only when a complete determination of the controversy cannot be had without their presence. (Chapman v. Forbes, 123 N. Y. 532; Walsh v. National Broadway Bank, 11 Misc. Rep. 249; 13 Misc. Rep. 3; Lester v. Seilliere, 50 App. Div. 239; Reimers v. Schmitt, 68 App. Div. 299.)
   Per Curiam.

As between the appellant, Mutual Tile Company, and the New York Title and Mortgage Company rights and priorities must obviously be ascertained and settled. Since its rights and interests are or may be involved in that settlement respondent should have an opportunity to be heard in the matter. The proper forum for the determination of all these equities and priorities is in this action. (McDermott v. Lawyers Mortgage Co., 232 N. Y. 336, 349.)

The order should be reversed, with costs in all courts, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Question No. 1 is not answered. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.