Case Name: Jackson, ex dem. Ireland, against Hull
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1813-10
Citations: 10 Johns. 481
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson, ex dem. Ireland, against Hull.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 487–489

Head Matter:
Jackson, ex dem. Ireland, against Hull.
NEWYORK,
Oct. 1813.
iakes°a mortgage to secure a debt by bond, or Sre^'raueof which he may pm-sue until his debt is satishan “a(* cj)f0,a‘i1bt°a get possession and profits of gag¡d"'by°an ^gnntn0tof may foreclose redemption,01 sc!l0 llp“y ti\e debt; and where a ere* diior so secured brought an action on his bond and obtained judgment and issued execution, on wliic.ii the land mortgaged was taken and sold by the sheriff at public auction to J?., the highest bidder, for 70 dollars, though it was mortgaged to secure a debt of 7£24 dollars, Z>.9 the purchaser, knowing at the time of the mortgage and of its being unpaid ; in an action of ejectment, afterwards broughtby Ji>> the mortgagee, to recover the possession against J?., it was held that the sale, under Ihe execution, was only of the equity of redemption or interest of the mortgagor, and that the morí* gagee notwithstanding the sate, to was entitled to recover ílxc porsessiuno
THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover lot No. 1. in the subdivision of lotNo. 48. in Dry dm, in Cauuga county. The , 17 •' s 7 , plaintiff claimed title under a mortgage, executed by ¡Samuel Clark to the lessor of the plaintiff, for the premises in question, dated 3d October, 1806, which was duly recorded the 10th October, 1806. The mortgagor was in possession at the time of exe- , cutmg the mortgage.
The defendant claimed the premises under a deed, dated the 1st August, 1811, executed by the sheriff of the county, pursuant to a sale of the premises under afi.fa. issued on a judgment in favour of the lessor of the plaintiff against Clark, the mortgagor, The judgment was on the bond, to secure the payment of which Clark gave the mortgage, and was entered up in May, 1811. The sale by the sheriff was made the 1st August, 1811. The defendant, at the time of the sale, knew of the mortgage, and that it was unsatisfied; and it was admitted that, at the time of the sale, there was due on the bond and mortgage the sum of 724 dol lavs, with interest from the date; and that the mortgaged premises were purchased at the sheriff’s sale for 70 dollars.
" The sale was directed by the plaintiff’s attorney, who also directed. the sheriff to inform him of the time and place of the sale, that he might attend; the sheriff informed the plaintiff’s attorney of the time and place of sale, by letter, but which was not received until after the sale.
■ It was agreed that either party might turn the case into a special verdict. It was submitted to the court without argument.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The sale of the premises on execution,, not amounting to a satisfaction of the judgment, was not an extinguishment of the mortgage. The creditor who takes a mortgage to secure a debt by bond, or otherwise, has three remedies, either of which he is at liberty to pursue, and all of which he may pursue until his debt is satisfied. He may bring an action of debt upon the bond, or he may put himself in possession of the rents and profits of the land mortgaged by means of an ejectment, or he may foreclose the equity of redemption and sell the land to satisfy the debt. In this case the creditor sues on the bond and obtains judgment and execution, and the execution strictly reaches only to the remaining interest of the mortgagor in the land. It reaches only to the equity of redemption. That is all that was sold in the present case, and that was all the defendant meant to purchase; for at the time of the purchase he knew of the existence of the mortgage, and that it was unsatisfied, and he gave only the sum of 70 dollars for the land, though it had been mortgaged to secure above 700 dollars. This, then, is not a case in which the creditor's pursuit of his remedy on the mortgage, works any injury or injustice to the purchaser under the previous execution, and it is a case in which the creditor would lose his security, and probably his debt, if the present remedy was denied him. There is good reason, arising out of the above facts, why the court should consider-this ease upon strict legal principles. Justice requires that it should be so considered, and it is not true that the plaintiff, by this remedy, is defeating the sale made under his direction, or that the salé was of the interest which had been pledged to him by the mortgage. The sale was Only of the residuum of interest remaining in the mortgagor after the execution of his mortgage. The mortgage interest is no further touched by the sale rlian the purchase-money of the equity of redemption may go diminish the amount of the debt. The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to judgment. to
Judgment for the plaintiff