Case Name: Patton et al. v. Townsend et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-07-22
Citations: 19 N.Y.S. 946
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patton et al. v. Townsend et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 19
Pages: 946–946

Head Matter:
Patton et al. v. Townsend et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
July 22, 1892.)
Mortgages—Foreclosure—Pleading.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the complaint alleged that defendants M. and E. were partners in business; that M. executed the mortgage to give the firm credit, and to secure a debt due by it; that they both at that time applied for an extension of credit; that M. and E. gave a draft and a note in settlement of an open account of the firm, indorsed by defendants S. and R, and that it was agreed that the mortgage should remain as security for the entire debt; that defendants S. and R indorsed renewals of original notes secured by the mortgage, and that the notes were protested for nonpayment. Held sufficient to show a cause of action against each of the defendants.
Appeal from special term, Queens county.
Action by David Patton and others against Maurice E. Townsend and others to foreclose a mortgage. From a j udgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Cullen, J.
Mortimer S. Brown, for appellants. Jackson c6 Burr, (Jas. A. Burr, Jr., of counsel,) for respondents.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The complaint alleges that Maurice E. Townsend and Edward ÍT. Townsend, together with John P. McEwan, were, on the 18th of January, 1889, partners in the lumber business; that Maurice E. Townsend gave the mortgage in question to induce the plaintiffs to give credit to the firm on lumber, and to secure payment of any balance due the plain tiffs on the 1st of April, 1890; that on the 1st of January, 1890, the debt was $17,711.72, represented by two notes of $5,000 each, and an open account for the balance; that at that date Maurice E. Townsend and Edward ÍT. Townsend were the sole partners, having assumed all the debts of McEwan & Co., and they applied for an extension of credit on their debt; that it was agreed to change the form of the debt; Maurice E. Townsend and Edward ÍT. Townsend gave a draft for $3,500, and their promissory note for $4,284.64, indorsed by the defendants Solomon Townsend and Robert Townsend; that these sums represented the open account of McEwan & Co.; that provision was made for renewal of the three notes upon certain payments, and that the mortgage should remain as security for the entire debt; that further credit was given to the partners Townsend, and Robert and Solomon Townsend indorsed the notes; that the notes were protested for nonpayment. The complaint clearly shows a mortgage given by Maurice E. Townsend to secure the plaintiffs for goods sold a firm of which he was a member; that the debt is unpaid; and that Solomon Townsend and Robert Townsend are indorsers upon notes given for a portion of the debt. A good cause of action is set forth against Maurice E. Townsend and Edward RT. Townsend, as they are personally liable for the debt secured by the mortgage. The indorsers on their notes, Solomon Townsend and Robert Townsend, are proper parties, because they are liable to the plaintiffs for the payment of the debt, or some part of it, secured by the mortgage. Code Civil Proc. § 1627. The order overruling the demurrer and interlocutory judgment thereon should be affirmed, with costs.