Case Name: HOCHSTEIN v. SCHLANGER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-04-04
Citations: 134 N.Y.S. 704
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOCHSTEIN v. SCHLANGER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 134
Pages: 704–708

Head Matter:
HOCHSTEIN v. SCHLANGER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 4, 1912.)
1. Mortgages (§ 435 )—Foreclosure—Collateral Security—Deficiency Decree.
Code Civ. Proe. § 1627, suM. 1, which provides that any person who is liable for the debt secured by a mortgage may be joined as a defendant •in foreclosure, and be charged for any deficiency, is intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits, and as under section 1628, which provides that, pending action to foreclose or after final judgment for the plaintiff, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt without leave of the court, the right to sue a surety on a bond given to secure a portion of the mortgage debt after a judgment of foreclosure would depend upon the pleasure of the court, such a surety was properly joined in the original action.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. § 1288; Dec. Dig. § 435.*]
2. Mortgages (§ 559*)—Foreclosure—Deficiency Decree—Prayer.
Though, in a complaint to foreclose a mortgage and to charge a surety on a bond given to secure part of the mortgage debt, the prayer erroneously asked for a separate judgment against the surety, where the complaint stated facts which entitled the plaintiff to a deficiency judgment, the erroneous prayer will not preclude its entry.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 1592, 1600-1608; Dec. Dig. § 559.*]
McLaughlin and Dowling, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Anna Hochstein against Solomon Schlanger and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, Solomon Schlanger appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, CLARKE, and DOWLING, JJ.
Meyer Levy, for appellant.
Henry J. Block, for respondent.
For titlier cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The action is to foreclose an overdue mortgage for $9,000. The defendant Schlanger demurs for misjoinder of causes of action and for general insufficiency.
The allegations of the complaint affecting said defendant and numbered tenth and eleventh read as follows:
"Tenth. That the defendant Solomon Schlanger had on or about the 7th day of May, 1909, executed and delivered unto the plaintiff herein an agreement in writing and sealed with his seal, dated on that day, wherein and whereby the said Solomon Schlanger did firmly and jointly bind himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators in the sum of one thousand ($1,000) dollars to be paid unto the plaintiff herein, which agreement should be void if the defendant Samuel Leder, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, shall pay or cause to be paid unto the plaintiff herein, the sum of nine thousand ($9,000) dollars, which was the remaining unpaid balance on the 7th day of May, 1909, on the bond and mortgage held by the plaintiff herein, together with the interest thereon at and after the rate of six (6%) per cent, per annum.
"Eleventh. That by the said agreement all of the covenants and conditions contained in the mortgage was made a part thereof with like force and effect as if the same was specifically set forth at length in said agreement. That said bond and mortgage became due and payable on the 27th day of August, 1910."
The demurrer is sought to be sustained by the argument that no cause of action will lie against the demurrant except one at law, and then only after all the remedies against the principal debtor have been exhausted, and there has be'en a failure to collect the full amount due. There can be no doubt that the bond given by the demurrant, as described in the complaint, was intended as and amounted to collateral security to the extent of one thousand dollars for the payment of the principal debt. Section 1627, subd. 1, Code of Civil Procedure, makes provision for just such a case. It provides that:
"Any person who is liable to the plaintiff for the-payment of the debt secured by the mortgage may be made a defendant in the action; and if he has appeared or been personally served with the summons, the final judgment may award payment by him of the residue of the debt remaining unsatisfied, after a sale of the mortgaged property and the application of the proceeds pursuant to the direction contained thereon."
The purpose of the provision of the Code was to dispose of the entire proceeding in one action so as to avoid a multiplicity of suits. Robert v. Kidansky, 111 App. Div. 475, 97 N. Y. Supp. 913; Equitable Life Ass'n Soc. v. Stevens, 63 N. Y. 341; Scofield v. Doscher, 72 N. Y. 491. If plaintiff had failed to make Schlanger a party defendant, and waited to sue him at law after exhausting his remedy against the principal debtor and the mortgaged property, he would have been unable to sue without first obtaining the leave of the court (section 1628, Code Civ. Proc.; McKernan v. Robinson, 84 N. Y. 105), and might be refused such leave for the very reason that he had omitted to make Schlanger a party to the foreclosure action and had thus prevented him from protecting himself on the foreclosure sale. See Darmstadt v. Mason, 144 App. Div. 249, 128 N. Y. Supp. 992.
It is true that plaintiff erroneously asks in his prayer for relief for a separate judgment against Schlanger for the amount of his bond. What he is entitled to is a judgment for any deficiency, not exceeding $1,000, that there may be found to be after the plaintiff's remedies upon the bond and mortgage are exhausted, but a merely erroneous prayer for relief does not condemn a complaint, if it states facts entitling the plaintiff to any relief at all, for the court will mold its judgment to fit the facts of the case, and conserve the rights of the parties.
The order appealed from is right, and must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE, J., concur. .