Case Name: George W. Mead, App'lt, v. Edwin I. Spink and Richard M. Martin, Resp'ts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05-14
Citations: 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 881
Docket Number: 
Parties: George W. Mead, App’lt, v. Edwin I. Spink and Richard M. Martin, Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 15
Pages: 881–884

Head Matter:
George W. Mead, App’lt, v. Edwin I. Spink and Richard M. Martin, Resp’ts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed May 14, 1888.)
Injunction—Sale, of property in a foreclosure action at a low figure—Deficiency judgment—Right to enforce—Not oppression.
An action of foreclosure was brought, and the property subject to the lien of the mortgage sold at the foreclosure sale for a nominal sum to the plaintiffs in that action. The defendant in that action was poor and unable to protect the property by bidding at the sale. There was entered a large deficiency judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the foreclosure action-have enjoyed the property so purchased, and now seek to enforce the deficiency judgment. This action is brought to restrain the enforcement of the said judgment. Held, that the sale being regular, the fact that the property brought less than its value constituted no cause of action .for the owner of the fee. The poverty of the plaintiff, which prevented the paying of his debt at or before the sale, was no defense in the foreclosure action, and that these facts were not grounds for equitable relief. Pratt, J., dissenting.
Sewall Sergeant and Albert E. Lamb, for app’lt; Spink & Martin, attorneys in person, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
—The plaintiff,- by his purchase of the mortgaged premises, became the principal debtor. The land was subject to a mortgage given by the Dunscombs, but the plaintiff agreed to pay it as part of the purchase money. Comstock v. Drohan, 7l N. Y., 9; Fairchild v. Lynch, 99 id., 359.
As a matter of course, when the plaintiff failed to perform his agreement and the mortgage was foreclosed, the holder of the mortgage entered up judgment for a deficiency against the mortgagor and the plaintiff who was to pay it. There was no question of the regularity of the sale, and if it did bring less than its value no cause of action results therefrom to the owner of the fee. There is no standard of value in the absence of fraud other than that reached by a public sale according to law. The poverty of the plaintiff, which prevented his paying his debt at or before the sale, was no defense to an action in foreclosure. No ground for equitable ruling is presented when an attempt is made to collect of a principal debtor instead of a surety. If the surety should pay it, the principal debtor would be responsible to repay it.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J., concurs.