Court Opinion

ID: 3587265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:36:53.19566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:54.490824
License: Public Domain

Neither the decision in McNeil v. The Tenth National Bank
(46 N.Y., 325), nor in Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank
(55 N Y, 41), affect the question involved in this case. Those cases hold that the owner of a chose in action is estopped from asserting his title against a bona fide purchaser for value, who purchased upon the faith of an apparent absolute ownership by assignment, conferred by the owner upon the assignee and seller, but neither of them intimated an intention to interfere with the well settled principle, that a purchaser of a chose in action, takes it subject to the equities between the original parties, and that the assignor can give no better title than he himself has. On the contrary, GROVER, J., in the last case declared, in answer to the suggestion that these principles might be impaired by the decision, that "no one pretends, but that the purchaser will take the former (non-negotiable choses in action) subject to all defences valid as to the original parties, nor that the mere possession is any more evidence of title in the possessor than is that of a horse." It is only where the owner, by his own affirmative act, has conferred the apparent title and absolute ownership upon another, upon the faith of which the chose in action has been purchased for value, that he is precluded from asserting his real title, and this conclusion was arrived at by the application of the doctrine of estoppel.
At the time Riley transferred the bond and mortgage to the defendant Bechstein, as between him and the plaintiff, the mortgagor, he had no title or interest which he could transfer. The mortgage was executed and delivered to him *Page 443 
as an accommodation, to be used as collateral security for the payment of a note of $2,000, which he contemplated getting discounted at the New York National Exchange Bank, and under an agreement not to have it recorded. He failed to procure the discount, and the plaintiff repeatedly requested the return of the bond and mortgage, and Riley promised to return the same from time to time. It is very clear that the bond and mortgage in his hands were of no value, and that he could not have enforced them, and the defendant when he purchased, occupied no better position. Riley could not sell any better title than he had, which was none, and the defendant could not acquire by the purchase from him any better title. The specific transaction in which the mortgage was to be used having failed, Riley's possession and right to the mortgage, after that was no different than if it had been delivered to him without any agreement for its use at all. He was then the possessor of the bond and mortgage executed and delivered without consideration, and without authority to use it for any purpose. I have examined the evidence and am of the opinion that it is sufficient to sustain the findings of the judge, and therefore the findings are conclusive. The husband was not made a party, and a mis-trial is claimed for this reason. He had no interest as it appears in the real estate, and the defect should have been taken by answer or demurrer. Otherwise it is deemed waived. (Code, § 148.)
The General Term modified the judgment, so as to preserve all the rights of the defendant against the husband, and he cannot in any event be injured.
The judgment must be affirmed.
All concur; RAPALLO, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed. *Page 444