Case Name: Sarah J. Burke et al., Resp'ts, v. Willliam H. Jackson, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-07-07
Citations: 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 364
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sarah J. Burke et al., Resp’ts, v. Willliam H. Jackson, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 32
Pages: 364–368

Head Matter:
Sarah J. Burke et al., Resp’ts, v. Willliam H. Jackson, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department
Filed July 7, 1890.)
1. Evidence — Statements of extent of grant in purchase money MORTGAGE NOT ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THIRD PARTIES.
Statements in a purchase money mortgage as to the dimensions of the land conveyed to the mortgagor are not admissible in an action of ejectment against one who was a stranger to the transaction.
2. Same.
The doctrine that a deed and purchase money mortgage are to be construed together as one act does not mean that the mortgage can in any way increase or diminish, as against a third party, the amount of land conveyed by the deed.
(Mayham, J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon the verdict of a jury.
P. J. Lewis, for app’lt; Z. S. Westbrook, for resp’t. .

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.
This is an action of ejectment to recover a strip of land about one foot wide and about ninety-six feet long. The question is how wide the lot of plaintiffs really is. The plaintiffs claim under a deed from French to their ancestor which describes the lot as bounded " Northerly by Grove street, easterly by Daniel Lefferts' lot, southerly by Waterman Sweet's lot and westerly by a lanegiving no other description and no dimensions.
Burke, the grantee, the same day gave a mortgage to French, described as a purchase money mortgage, describing the land mortgaged as bounded " Northerly by Grove street, easterly by Daniel Lefferts' lot, southerly by Waterman Sweet's lot and westerly by a lot of the party of the second part." (viz., French) and further stating that the lot thereby conveyed was " fifty-one feet wide on. Grove street"
This mortgage the plaintiffs gave in evidence on the trial against defendant's objection in order to sustain plaintiffs' claim that their lot was fifty-one feet wide on Grove street. The defendant's lot lies on the easterly side of plaintiffs' lot. The plaintiffs claim that this mortgage, executed by their ancestor to French, is competent: First, as being part of the transaction with the deed; second, as a declaration by a party in possession as to the extent and claim of his possession.
It does not appear that defendant derived title either from French or from Burlce. Therefore the transaction between them was not binding on him. The giving back a purchase money mortgage by Burke could not increase the title which he had received from French; especially as against a stranger.
The deed bounded the land easterly by Lefferts ; westerly by a lane. The mortgage described the western boundary differently; • yet it might mean the same thing.
The doctrine that a deed and the purchase money mortgage are to be construed together as one act does not apply. That doctrine only indicates the simultaneous character of the transactions, showing that no outside rights can come between. But -the doctrine does not mean that the mortgage can in any way increase or diminish, as against a third party, the amount of land conveyed by the deed. A mortgagor may be very willing to mortgage land twice as large as that described in the deed to him. But the mortgagee on foreclosure would get no more than the deed had conveyed.
Declarations of former owners have been admitted to show the nature of their claim; or to show its extent; or to show where boundaries were.
But it does not seem to us that this mortgage comes within the rule. At the best; this is only an assertion by Burke that the description in a deed to him embraced fifty-one feet. How that can be evidence against the defendant we do not see. Burke might as well have said that the lot mortgaged was one hundred feet on Grove street; which would have taken all of defendant's lot, and would have been an easy way of getting title to another's property.
We have examined the cases cited by the plaintiffs to sustain the admission of the mortgage. They seem to us clearly distinguishable from the present case. The doctrine here asserted is that one, by executing a mortgage on another's land to a third party, can acquire title thereto, or at least can show, as against such owner, a possession thereof. If authority is needed to the contrary, it may be found in Armstrong v. Du Dots, 90 U. Y., 95, at 104.
Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event
Landon, J., concurs.