Case Name: People ex rel. Bennett, App'lt, v. Joseph O. Miller, Register, etc., Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-02-15
Citations: 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 749
Docket Number: 
Parties: People ex rel. Bennett, App’lt, v. Joseph O. Miller, Register, etc., Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 6
Pages: 749–753

Head Matter:
People ex rel. Bennett, App’lt, v. Joseph O. Miller, Register, etc., Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 15, 1887.)
Í. Mandamus—When granted.
A mandamus will not be granted as a matter of right, when there is a clear remedy at law.
U. Same—When register not a proper party to a suit.
Where there is a contest whether a mortgage should be marked of record a as satisfied, it is not proper to put the contest upon the register of deeds, who has no interest in the question, and who is acting under the record as the parties have made it. Pratt, J., dissenting.
Appeal from an order refusing to direct a writ of mandamus to issue directing the register to satisfy a certain •mortgage of record.
Foster & Stephens, for app’lt; Sewell & Pierce, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The rule that a mandamus will not he granted as matter of right when there is a clear remedy at law, is well settled. People ex rel., etc., v. Campbell, 72 N. Y., 496. The papers show no clear legal right to the cancellation of the mortgage. The mortgage was for $5,000 and was given by one Hunt and wife to the executor of Tristram Allen. Tristram B. Allen assigned his interest in this mortgage to the Stationers' Board of Trade, to secure $400, and this assignment was dated September 12, 1883, and recorded September 19, 1883. There was no assignment by the executors to Tristram B. Allen then on record, but in January following, one was given and recorded. A mortgage as between the parties passes by delivery and Tristram B. Allen probably owned the mortgage when he conveyed it to the Stationers' Company. At all events, proof of that fact is possible and seems probable. Assuming that the purchasers from Tristram B. Allen need not search anterior to the date of the assignment to him in January, 1884, it is still an issuable fact whether she did not have actual knowledge of the transfer to the Stationers' Company. It is also possible to show that the consideration paid by Mrs. Bennett was not what is shown in law as bona fide. The Stationers' Company aver these facts to exist, and the only proper tribunal to determine the facts is a court of law.
' It is entirely unreasonable to put the contest upon a register of deeds who has no interest in the question and who is acting under the record as these parties have made it.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J., Concurs; Pratt, J., dissents.