Case Name: Mead v. Spink et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05-14
Citations: 1 N.Y.S. 390
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mead v. Spink et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 1
Pages: 390–393

Head Matter:
Mead v. Spink et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 14, 1888.)
Mortgages—Foreclosure—Relief in Equity.
A complaint alleged that plaintiff purchased land subject to a mortgage of $4,000, which he assumed; that the land was worth $15,000; that the mortgage was foreclosed, and plaintiff was prevented by poverty from protecting .his property, and it was sold for the costs of suit, and judgment for deficiency entered against him for a sum more than the original debt; that defendants were enforcing the judgment against him by execution and supplementary proceedings, without endeavoring to collect it of the original debtor, the mortgagor. Neither fraud nor any irregularity in the sale was alleged, ffeld, that no cause of action was stated, nor ground for equitable interference. Pbatt, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Kings county; Cullen, Justice.
The action was brought by George W. Mead against Samuel T. Ludlow and others, (holders of a judgment against the plaintiff and Samuel W. Dunscomb and another, co-defendants,) and Erwin I. Spink and others, attorneys for the. judgment creditors. It appeared by the complaint that plaintiff purchased certain premises for $15,000, subject to a mortgage thereon for $4,000, executed by the grantors, the defendants Dunscomb, which plaintiff assumed and agreed to pay; that when the mortgage fell due, April 1,1875, plaintiff had become embarrassed in his pecuniary circumstances, and unable to pay it; that an action to foreclose the mortgage was begun July 8, 1876, and on December 10,1877, a judgment of foreclosure and sale, with the usual clause for entry of a deficiency judgment, was rendered, and the premises sold at public auction pursuant thereto, September 10,1878; that “there was little or no bidding or competition, and that the said mortgaged premises were purchased and bidden in by or for” the plaintiffs in the foreclosure action “at a merely nominal sum, and for less than the value thereof;” that the amount then due, with costs, etc., was $5,100, and that on October 5, 1878, the plaintiffs in that action entered a deficiency judgment against the plaintiff herein, without notice, for $4,778.64; that the premises sold were worth far more than the entire, amount due on the bond and mortgage, and that “plaintiff, being then in embarrassed pecuniary circumstances, was wholly unable to protect his interest in said premises upon said sale, and that he had no defense to said foreclosure action, and could not prevent the foreclosure of said mortgage, nor could he bid in the property, nor in any manner prevent the sacrifice of the same in the way it was sacrificed, as above set forth, at said sale, nor prevent the said supposed and claimed deficiency from arising thereon, and the entry of the said judgment therefor. ” The complaint further alleged that no proceedings were taken to enforce the judgment until defendant Wright, as attorney for Ludlow, applied for and obtained leave to issue execution, February 27, 1886; that execution was issued against plaintiff only; and that Ludlow and Wright,-his attorney, and his successors, Erwin I. Spink and Richard M. Martin, have since been endeavoring to collect the judgment by proceedings supplementary to execution, or otherwise. The defendants Spink and Martin demurred to the complaint for insufficiency. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff appealed.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
Sewall Sergeant, for appellant. Spink & Martin, pro se, respondents.

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, 71 N. Y. 9; Fairchild v. Lynch, 99 N. Y. 359, 2 N. E. Rep. 20. 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 a 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 received 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 the action in foreclosure. No ground for equitable ruling is presented, unless 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.
Dykmah, J., concurs.