Case Name: EDWARD WALLIS, Appellant, v. JAMES J. RANDALL, Respondent, Impleaded with EDWIN PIERCE
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1878-11
Citations: 23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWARD WALLIS, Appellant, v. JAMES J. RANDALL, Respondent, Impleaded with EDWIN PIERCE.
Judges: Present — Leaened, P. J., Boaedman and Bocees, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 23
Pages: 33–37

Head Matter:
EDWARD WALLIS, Appellant, v. JAMES J. RANDALL, Respondent, Impleaded with EDWIN PIERCE.
Evidence — when, the value of property covered by a mortgage is admissible, to show that a transfer of the mortgage loas a payment, and not made by way of security.
This action was brought to recover an amount alleged to be due from the defendant Randall on land purchased by him from the plaintiff. The question was whether a mortgage, for §4,800, on other land, transferred by defendant to plaintiff at the time of the sale, was intended as an absolute payment of that amount, or only as a security therefor. Thei'e wasaprior mortgage for §6,000 on thesame property covered by the one transferred. Upon the trial evidence was admitted against plaintiff’s objection and exception, to show that, at the time of the transfer, the property covered by the mortgages was worth more than the aggregate amount of both.
Held, that the evidence was properly admitted, as tending to show that the transfer of the mortgage was intended as a payment. . (Bocees, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from 'an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.
The action is brought to recover part of the purchase-price of certain real estate sold by the plaintiff to the defendants in 1869. At the time of the sale a mortgage for $4,800 was transferred by the defendant Bandall to the plaintiff. It was a second mortgage, there being a prior one for $6,000 on the same property, which was held by Bandall. Subsequently Bandall foreclosed his mortgage and bought in the premiums, there being no surplus out of which to pay the $4,800 mortgage. The principal question in the case was, whether the $4,800 mortgage was accepted by the plaintiff as an absolute payment, or as a security only for such payment.
Upon the trial evidence was received against plaintiff’s objection and exception, to show that the farm, at the time of the transfer, was worth more than both of the mortgages.
Lansing <& Lyman, for the appellant.
L. B. Kern and D. W. Cameron, for the respondent.

Opinion:
LEARNED, P. J. :
I am not able to agree with the view expressed in the opinion of Judge Bocees that evidence of the value of the farm was inadmissible. If A. owed B. a debt of $1,000, and A. claimed to have paid it by the transfer of a farm, it seems to me that to show that the farm was worth only $100 would be evidence which would have, and ought to have, some weight in deciding the question.
And so if the dispute were whether the land transferred were a payment or a security of that debt, proof that it was worth $10,000 would influence any mind out of court; and, I think, might properly influence even minds in court.
If one were attempting to prove payment in money, I suppose he would not be limited to proof that he handed the creditor a roll of United States currency, but might show how much there was ; in other words, the value ; and if the debtor averred that he had delivered $5,000 in bills to secure a debt of SI,000, and the creditor averred that that amount had been delivered in payment of that debt, I think that the value delivered would be very material.
I concur in the view that the case presents a question of fact, and that there is no ground for reversal on the fact, and I therefore think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.