Case Name: Charles H. Barson and Mary Matilda Barson, Respondents, v. Agnes K. Murphy Mulligan and William G. Mulligan, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-18
Citations: 133 A.D. 44
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles H. Barson and Mary Matilda Barson, Respondents, v. Agnes K. Murphy Mulligan and William G. Mulligan, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 44–48

Head Matter:
Charles H. Barson and Mary Matilda Barson, Respondents, v. Agnes K. Murphy Mulligan and William G. Mulligan, Appellants.
First Department,
June 18, 1909.
Ejectment — mortgage—facts not showing agreement that mortgagee may remain in possession.
I
Action of ejectment: Evidence examined, and held, .insufficient to require a submission to the jury of the question as to whether the plaintiffs had agreed , that the-defendant; a mortgagee, might remain in possession of the premises until the mortgage was paid.
Laughlin and Clarke, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Agnes K. Murphy Mulligan and another, from a judgment of the 'Supreme Court, in .favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the Gffice of the clerk of' the county of Rew York on the 13th day of January, . 1909, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order bearing date the 12th day of January, 1909, and entered in said clerk’s office, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes, and also, (as stated in the . ■ notice of appeal), from an order béaring date the Tth day of January, 1909, and entered' in said clerk’s office, directing the entry of .judgment. .
William G. Mulligan, for the appellants.
Henry A. Forster [Frederick P. Forster with him on the brief], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.:
The effect of the interview between the defendant and one of the . plaintiffs was not before the Court of Appeals when the ease was in that court. I. do not think that, on the testimony as it stands, there was a sufficient consent to entitle, the holder of the mortgage to be treated as a mortgagee in possession,' apjilying. the rule .laid down oil the former appeal by the Court of Appeals (191 N. Y. 306).
The judgment, and order should be affirmed, with costs.
McLaughlin and .¡Scott, JJ., concurred; Laughlin. and Clarke, JJ." dissented. '