Case Name: Rankin vs. The Minister, Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in Orchard-Street in the City of New-York, Woodruff, Barnes and Westerfield
Court: New York Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1831-06-13
Citations: 1 Edw. Ch. 20
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rankin vs. The Minister, Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in Orchard-Street in the City of New-York, Woodruff, Barnes and Westerfield.
Judges: 
Reporter: Edwards' Chancery Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 20–21

Head Matter:
Rankin vs. The Minister, Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in Orchard-Street in the City of New-York, Woodruff, Barnes and Westerfield.
Where a first mortgagee files a bill of foreclosure, and after a decree, but before a sale, the mortgagor pays the interest due and costs, the after-mortgagees cannot have the benefit of the decree, except by filing a supplemental bill.
June 13, 1831.
The complainant had filed a bill of foreclosure and sale as a first mortgagee against the defendants the Ministers, Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in Orchard-street in the city of New-York, on account of the interest being in arrear. In this bill, the other defendants were made parties, as holding subsequent mortgages. The usual r ° • 00 decree for sale was obtained ; but the mortgagors had paid to the complainant the interest which was duo, with the costs, and a sale was stayed.
The defendants, Woodruff Barnes and Wcsterfield, in a petition, showed their mortgages were due, and prayed that an account might be taken, by a proper reference, of what was due as well to the complainant Rankin as to the petitioners; also for an enforcement of the decretal order; and that the mortgaged premises might be sold under the same, and out of the residue of monies arising from such salo (after paying the complainant) the petitioners might he paid what, on such accounting, should be found due and owing to them with costs; and» for further relief.
Mr. Murray Hoffman, for the petitioners.
Mr. W. Slosson, for the minister, &c.

Opinion:
The Vice-Chancellor.
It is not safe to proceed on this pe-
tition. The law suspends the decree in this case until a fur thcr default (2 R. S. 192. 193.) But the defendants who now petition are not without their remedy. They may file a sup-i J *> a plemental hill, setting forth the original hill and the decree, and pray for permission to move the latter, and be paid after the first mortgagee is satisfied his amount and costs. Thus, they may connect their 'proceeding with the original bill, without danger from an objection that another suit is pending in relation to the same matter.
Application refused, without costs; but the petitioners have leave to file a supplemental bill.