Case Name: ROOSEVELT et al. v. SCHILE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-06-10
Citations: 88 N.Y.S. 592
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROOSEVELT et al. v. SCHILE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 88
Pages: 592–597

Head Matter:
ROOSEVELT et al. v. SCHILE et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 10, 1904.)
1. Mortgages—Foreclosure—Sales—Setting Aside—Resale.
A mortgage covered lots A and B. A second covered lots A, B, and C. A third covered lots A and B. A fourth covered lots C and D. A fifth covered lots A, C, D, and E. A sixth covered lots A, C, D, and E. All the mortgages were foreclosed. Sales were had only under judgments foreclosing the third and sixth mortgages. At the sale under the judgment foreclosing the third mortgage, only lot B was offered for sale, and it was sold subject to the judgments foreclosing the first and second mortgages, and a deed was duly made to the purchaser. The amount realized was not sufficient to pay the judgment. The lots covered by the sixth mortgage were then sold under the judgment foreclosing that mortgage, subject to judgments in the other actions. Held, that orders setting aside the sales and ordering a resale on motions of the guardian ad litem for some of the defendants were proper; it being impossible to tell for what sum any piece sold, or how much the whole property realized.
Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Separate actions by John E. Roosevelt and others against Romeo H. Schile and others to foreclose separate mortgages. From orders setting aside sales had under judgments of foreclosure in two actions, and ordering a resale, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
James A. Speer, for appellants.
John M. Perry, for infant respondents.
William G. McCrea, for respondents Lange and others. .
Edw. W. S. Johnston, for respondents Schile and others.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, J.
These are two appeals by the plaintiffs alone from orders of the Special Term made in two actions, viz., Nos. 3 and 6. Those actions were brought for the foreclosure of mortgages, and at the same time other actions, known as 1, 2, 4, and 5, were pending, and all of the six actions went to judgment. The mortgages foreclosed were upon premises on 135th street and 136th street, in the city of New York, and the situation of the several mortgages and their relation to the property can only be understood by reference to the following diagram:
Mortgage in action No. 1 was for $33,735, covering lots A and B; No. 3, for $8,387, covering lots A, B, and C; No. 3, for $9,369, covering lots A and B; No. 4, for $38,156, covering lots C and D; No. 5, for $11,358, covering lots A, C, D, and E; No. 6, for $33,308, covering lots A, C, D, and E.
Although each of these foreclosure suits went to judgment, sales were made only in actions Nos. 3 and 6. It will .be seen at a glance that here are overlapping mortgages. At the sale the property was bid in by certain persons, and it is sufficient now to say, as the record is presented, that the orders from which the appeals are taken by the plaintiffs alone sufficiently protect any rights or possible claims of purchasers, and therefore no further consideration is required of that matter.
After the sale in actions Nos. 3 and 6, the guardian ad litem for some infant defendants made motions to set aside such sales and for a resale of the premises. Those motions were based upon the facts that, notwithstanding the judgments in foreclosure in the other" actions, the plaintiffs only advertised sales under judgments in actions Nos. 3 and 6; that on the sale the plaintiffs first proceeded under the judgment recovered in action No. 3, which covered both parcels A and B, but only offered parcel B, and, in so doing, announced that the same was sold subject to the judgments recovered in actions 1 and 3, specifying the amounts,'and that all bids for that plot would be taken, over and above the amount due in actions 1 and 3, making the price to be paid for the plot B the amount to be paid on the two prior judgments thereon, plus the amount of cash bid, notwithstanding that the judgments not only covered and were liens upon the parcels so offered, but upon two other parcels, A and C, as well. The premises were knocked down by the auctioneer for the sum of $1,000. The terms of sale were afterwards signed, and a deed for the property delivered to the purchaser. Other facts appear with reference to the sale of property in action No. 6. After parcel B was sold in action No. 3, although the plaintiffs had not realized the full amount due in that action, they abandoned the sale under the judgment. That is to say, they did not sell parcel A, but proceeded to sell under the judgment in action No. 6, and created a situation which, with reference to the terms up'on which the property was offered and bid in, is analogous to that upon the sale in action No. 3, namely, selling subject to judgments in other actions than the one in which the sale was made. This statement of the way in which the sales were conducted under the terms of sale indicates the way in which was brought about the result well stated by the court below, viz., that "the manner in which the property was sold made it quite impossible to tell for what any piece of property sold, or how much the whole property realized."
The matter is involved in so much confusion that, if the guardian ad litem had appealed, we should have been much inclined to set aside the sale absolutely. But as it is, and as the orders are made on his motion, we think they should be affirmed in each case, with costs. It is not intended by this decision to prevent a proper application, on a showing" of additional facts, for further instructions as to a resale .of the premises.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, J., concur. INGRAHAM, J., concurs in result.