Case Name: Hallock against Smith and Williamson
Court: New York Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1820-12-08
Citations: 4 Johns. Ch. 649
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hallock against Smith and Williamson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Chancery Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 649–651

Head Matter:
Hallock against Smith and Williamson.
December 8th
A re-examination of witnesses is not of course, but only on special application to the Court, and on sufficient cause shown, by affidavit, ór otherwise, according to circumstances.
On a bill to foreclose a mortgage, the mortgagor whose equity of redemption had been sold by the sheriff under an execution, at law, must be made a party; as he has, by the act of the 12th of April, 1820, (sess. 43. ch. 184.) one year from the sale, to redeem the land from the purchase, and, therefore, an existing right of which he cannot be devested within the year.
BILL to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants were purchasers, under a sale on execution at law, since the first day of May last, of the mortgagor’s equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises, and received the sheriff’s certificate of the sale and purchase, in pursuance of the act, entitled, “ an act in addition to the act concerning judgments and executions,” passed the 12th of April, 1820. The mortgagor, who, by that act, has one year from the sale to redeem the land from the purchaser, was not made a party to the suit. Issue was joined, and proof taken on both sides, and the cause regularly set down for hearin g.
S. B. Strong,
for the defendants, moved for a re-examijnation of two of the witnesses, who had been examined in chief and cross-examined, on due notice of the motion, and on the alleged ground of the insufficiency of their answers to some of the interrogatories. It was also objected, on the part of the defendants, that the mortgagor ought'to have been made a party, or that his deposition (which was suppressed on the ground of his interest in,the cause, as the defendants had set up fraud in the execution of the mortgage, and that the same was given without consideration) be read.
G. W. Strong, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
The Chancellor
said, that a re-examination was not of course, but at the discretion of the Court, on special application; and that in this case, the truth, as to the essen* tial matters in issue, as far as it depended upon the exami- ' nation of those witnesses, did not appear to require a further examination. The 22d rule of this Court declares, that a witness shall not be re-examined, but upon sufficient 'cause shown by affidavit or otherwise, according to circumstances. (Vide also, Lord Bacon's rule, n. 74. 17 Vesey, 434. 1 Johns. Ch. Rep. 140.) The motion was, therefore denied. But the objection, that the mortgagor was not a .party, was well taken. He was entitled, within one year from the sale, to redeem his interest in the mortgaged premises, from the purchasers under the execution, and, consequently, he had an existing right (of which he was not devested, within the year, by the sale, and could only be by foreclosure here,) to unite with that redemption, a redemption. also of the premises from the mortgage incumbrance.
It was, accordingly, ordered, " that the cause stand over, with liberty to the plaintiff to amend his bill by making the said mortgagor a party thereto, or otherwise, as. he shall be advised."