Case ID: sarat-ch-sent_4/html/0032-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Kelly v. William Israel et al. The same v. James Thompson et al. The same v. James Thompson and wife, William Israel et al.
    
    J. Rhoades, for appellant Warwick 3 E. Sandford and M. S. Bidwell, for R. Kelly ; F. S. Cutting. for the respondents.
    Decree of fore, closure, ■when execution of, committed to junior incum-brancer.
   Decided that where other parties than the complainant, in a foreclosure suit are interested in the execution of the decree of foreclosure, as juni- or incumbrancers, the complainant has no right to suspend the execution of such a decree, without their consent,. And that if he neglects to proceed to a sale with due diligence, the court upon the application of any other party interested in the enforcement of the decree, will commit the prosecution thereof to him. Or, if the decree has already been placed in the hands of the master to be. executed, will direct him to proceed to a sale without delay, notwithstanding any directions he may receive to the contrary, from the complainant or his solicitor.

Orders appealed from reversed and modified, without'costs-' tb either partv upon the appeal of complainant.