Case Name: CORWITH v. BARRY et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-05-08
Citations: 23 N.Y.S. 200
Docket Number: 
Parties: CORWITH v. BARRY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 23
Pages: 200–200

Head Matter:
(69 Hun, 113.)
CORWITH v. BARRY et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 8, 1893.)
Foreclosure Sale—Setting Aside and Ordering Resale.
Where, either as the result of design or misinformation, there is a misapprehension respecting the adjournment of a foreclosure sale on the part of the judgment creditor, who is present to protect his judgment, an order directing a resale is proper.
Appeal from Kings county court.
Action by William F. Corwith against Lawrence Barry and Sarah Barry, his wife, and Patrick F. Craddock, to foreclose a mortgage. From an order setting aside a sale of the mortgaged premises to James P. Sloane, and directing a resale, the latter appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
Magner & Hughes, (Thos. F. Magner, of counsel,) for appellant.
James F. Quigley, for respondent.

Opinion:
DYKMAN, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the county court of Kings county, directing a resale of the property described in the complaint. The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and the sale was under the judgment thereon. There was a, misapprehension respecting the adjournment of the sale on the part of the judgment creditor, who was present to protect his judgment. Either the misinformation respecting the adjournment of" the sale was the result of design or misinformation, and in either case it would be inequitable to permit the sale to stand. The order appealed from is just, and should be affirmed, with $10. costs and disbursements. All concur.