Frear v. Sweet

From the matters alleged in the pleadings, an appellate court would expect that the issue tried would have been, whether the five-acre piece of the lands had been released from or was still subject to, the lien of the mortgage

In the absence of amended pleading or of stipulation, the court of review must infer the consent- to try issues from the evidence offered upon the one side and the absence of objections or the character of the objections, if any are made, upon the other side. (Marston v. Gould, 69 N. Y. 220 ; Platner v. Platner, 78 N. Y. 95 ; Walsh v. Wash. Ins. Co., 32 N. Y. 440 -443.)

Upon the trial of this case, the plaintiff proved the substantial allegations of the complaint, by the introduction of the mortgage, the several assignments and the dates of recording the same. Such proofs showed that the five-acre piece was subject to the lien of the mortgage. The defendant Clement Sweet then introduced the deed of the five acres to himself by Franklin Sweet, the mortgagor, and the release thereof by Franklin Creed, the mortgagee, and that these several instruments were the results of a common negotiation between the parties to the instruments, which when enlarged and expressed in their constituent elements signify that on the 1st day of May, 18Y3, Francis Creed, Franklin Sweet and

All this evidence was received without objection except that the evidence of the delivery of the release was objected to as immaterial and that the release was not then attested and acknowledged. This objection to the delivery of the release was doubtless properly overruled. These facts were proved without objection.

The next step in the trial was this question by defendant: “Q. Were not the execution and delivery of the deed from Francis Creed to Franklin Sweet and of the bond and mortgage from Franklin Sweet to Francis Creed; the payment of your $150 to Franklin, and his $350 with yours, making $500, to Francis Creed; the execution and delivery of the deed of the five acres to you, and the execution and delivery of the release thereof to you, simultaneous acts made at the same time and place, and one and the same transaction % ”

This was objected to as calling for a conclusion of fact, and improper, and the objection was overruled and defendant excepted. Thus it will be seen that all this evidence, when given in detail, was not objected to, and when it was afterAvard sought to embrace all this evidence in one question, that question was not objected to as calling for impertinent or irrelevant evidence, or evidence not within the issue, but simply as calling for a conclusion of fact, and improper. It

Nor do I perceive that any error was committed by overruling the objections and allowing the witness to answer the general questions referred to above. The witness had already testified to every fact contained in the general question, and without objection. Adding to the end of the general question embracing the entire series of acts, if they constituted “ one and the same transaction,” it seems to me was unobjectionable and could work no harm. (Sweet v. Tuttle, 14 N. Y. 465 -472; Knapp v. Smith, 27 id. 277-282.) Every one of the matters constituting the series had been before proven to have been done at the same time and place without objection. "Whether they constituted one and the same transaction was much more a conclusion of law than of fact, and were all before the trial court when this general question was asked, and could not in the least degree have affected the decision that was subsequently made by the court.

Upon the matters thus proven practically without objection, the trial court found as a conclusion of fact that, “ First. That on the 1st day of Flay, 1873, the defendant Franklin Sweet made, executed and delivered to one Francis Creed his bond and mortgage as alleged in the complaint, and purporting to cover the premises described in the complaint in this action but not intended to cover the five acres sold to Clement Sweet by Franklin Sweet, and bounded generally as follows: North by Henry Wilbur, east by Franklin Sweet, south by the highway, and wrest by Otis Floore, wliich mortgage was duly recorded in the Dutchess county clerk’s office on the 7th day of May, 1873, in Liber 144 of Mortgages, at page 447, etc. This piece was never included in the plaintiff’s mortgage, but was sold free from it before it was executed.”

And, as a conclusion of law, “ First. That the five acres of land claimed by the defendant Clement Sweet in this action, and included in the description in said mortgage, is free from said foreclosure.” “ Second. That the whole of the premises

These results are claimed to have been produced, notwithstanding the five acres are embraced within the description contained in both the deed and the mortgage mentioned, from the fact found that at the time of the execution of the mortgage Franklin Sweet, the mortgagor, did not own the five-acre lot, but the same was owned by the defendant Clement Sweet, who had purchased the same in legal effect from the owner thereof, Francis Creed, and paid him therefor, and that the deed from him to Franklin Sweet did not convey the five acres to the latter, but to him as conduit to Clement Sweet-, and that the deed from Franklin to Clement Sweet was but the mode of accomplishing a sale of the five-acre lot by Francis Creed to defendant Clement Sweet. I think the evidence received upon the trial would warrant the inference of fact drawn by the trial court, and, hence, this court cannot interfere with the inference drawn, and it follows as a matter of law that the five acres in dispute was never subject to the lien of the mortgage, and that the same and the rights of the parties in respect to the mortgage are in nowise affected by the recording acts, for if the mortgage was not a lien upon the five acres, of course the recording acts could not operate to create a lien or a right where none existed before.

Treating, as we must for the purpose of tliis review, the deeds, mortgage and release as simultaneously made and delivered and as constitutent parts of the same transaction, the five acres conveyed to Clement Sweet were not in reality as-between the parties embraced within the mortgage to Creed. And the fact that the deed of the five acres contained a covenant of warranty of quiet enjoyment gave to the grantor an interest to protect by ivay of defense against the mortgage so far as related to the land so conveyed by her deed. And such defense was available both to him and his grantee against Creed, the mortgagee.

- The several assignees, including the plaintiff, mustbe deemed

Although the deed to Clement Sweet was not recorded until long after it was made, the notice which possession would afford of his rights was furnished by the fact that he went into actual possession of and occupied the five acres from the time he took the conveyance.

The judgment should be affirmed.

(dissenting.) Assuming that the release, as between the parties thereto, took effect immediately, the same as if it had been duly acknowledged, the question remains whether a release of part of mortgaged premises is subject to the recording act.

In Decker v. Boice ( 83 N. Y. 215 ), it was held that while an assignee in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, of a recorded mortgage, gets no preference over a prior unrecorded deed or mortgage by reason of such record, when his assignor could not claim it on account of notice or any other equity, still as such assignee is a purchaser and his assignment is a conveyance under the recording act, if the assignment is recorded before the recording of such prior deed or mortgage, he thereby obtains a preference and an unrecorded conveyance is as to him void under said act.

The court, speaking through Andrews, J, said: “The remark has been made in some recent cases, following dicta in earlier cases, that the only purpose of the statute authorizing the recording of assignments of mortgages was to regulate the relation to each other of successive assignees of the mortgagee

If, therefore, the release came within the provisions of the recording act, the plaintiff was protected against it, because it was not placed upon record until after two successive assignments of the mortgage had been recorded. She was a purchaser in good faith and for full value without notice of the release, and acquired all the rights and title of her assignors and of their assignor.

The recording act requires all conveyances to be recorded and renders void all that are not recorded, as against subsequent purchasers in good faith and for a valuable consideration. (4 R. S. [8th ed.] 2469, § 1.) A “ purchaser,” as defined by a subsequent section, includes, among others, every assignee of a mortgage. (Id., § 37.)

It follows, therefore, that the plaintiff can successfully invoke the statute, provided said release is a conveyance within the meaning thereof. The same act further provides that the term “conveyance,” as used therein, shall be construed to embrace every instrument in writing by which any estate, or interest in real estate, is created, aliened, mortgaged or assigned, or by which the title to any real estate may be affected in law or equity, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this case. (4 R. S. 2475, § 38.) It has been held under tins section that a release of part of mortgaged premises is a conveyance by which the title to real estate may be affected, and that, unless recorded, it is void as against a subsequent assignee of the mortgage for value and in good faith whose assignment

I think that a release is within the spirit, if not.the letter, of the comprehensive definition of a conveyance quoted from the statute. It is an instrument in writing by which the title to real estate may be affected in law or equity, because it may prevent the transfer of the title under a foreclosure. It is in the nature of a satisfaction of the mortgage, so far as the premises released are concerned, and it has been held that a satisfaction-piece comes within the statutory definition. (Bacon v. Van Schoonhoven, 87 N. Y. 446 .) The court in deciding that case said that a satisfaction-piece “ is equivalent to a release of the mortgaged premises. Instruments creating liens by way of mortgage, being expressly declared to be embraced, for the purposes of this act, in the term ‘ conveyance,’ it is difficult to conceive any reason why instruments discharging such liens should not be included in the general definition.”

While a release of the entire premises would utterly destroy the lien, a partial release destroys it pro ta/nto. If that which creates a lien may affect the title to real estate, that which extinguishes a lien may have a like result in that respect. The creation of a lien cannot affect title unless its destruction may also. If building up may have a certain effect, tearing down may also have an effect, by preventing that which might otherwise have taken place. Moreover, the release under consideration is in the form of a conveyance and has a granting clause, by which the party of the first part, for a consideration named, declares that he has “ granted, released, quit-claimed and set over and by these presents doth grant, release, quit-claim and set over to the party of the second part, his heirs and assigns,” the premises in question.

The learned trial court, however, decided the case upon the theory that the mortgage never attached to the five acres, because the deed of the entire tract, the mortgage back thereon, the deed of the five acres and the release thereof were all executed at the same time, were parts of the same transaction and

The complaint alleges the execution and delivery of the bond and mortgage and of the several assignments thereof and the recording of the same as stated. The premises, as described both in the complaint and the mortgage by metes and bounds, include the five acres. It is further alleged in the complaint, that “ the mortgage was given for part of the purchase-money of the premises above described,” referring to the entire tract. Clement Sweet and wife are the only defendants who served an answer. Without denying any of the allegations of the complaint, they allege that on May 1, 1813, Franklin Sweet and wife conveyed the five acres to said Clement Sweet, and that Francis Creed duly released the same from the hen of said mortgage. The defendants, therefore, stand upon the record as admitting, beyond the power of contradiction, that the mortgage was given to secure part of the purchase-price of the entire premises, and no amount of evidence, whether received with or without objection, would justify a finding to the contrary. Notwithstanding this the trial court found that the mortgage was not intended to cover the five acres and that they were never included in the plaintiff’s mortgage, but were sold free from it before it was executed. Exceptions were duly taken to these findings, which are without any available evidence to support them, because, if for no other reason, the defendants had in their answer admitted that they were not true and they were hence estopped from asserting the contrary on the trial.

Besides, the very release read in evidence by them recites that the mortgage covered the lands purporting to be released. Its language is: “ Whereas * * * by an indenture of mortgage * * * to secure the payment of the money therein specified,” the mortgagor “ did convey certain lands and tenements of which the lands hereinafter described are part, unto said mortgagee; and, whereas,” the mortgagee “ has agreed to give up and surrender the lands hereinafter described unto the party of the second part; his heirs and assigns, and to

Thus, the defendants admit, both by their answer and their evidence, that the mortgage covered the five acres, and there is no evidence that is claimed to show the contrary, except the several instruments already mentioned, and the fact that they were all executed simultaneously.

The form of the transaction, moreover, shows that the parties did not intend the result found by th.6 trial court, as otherwise no release would have been necessary. Until the delivery of the deed of the entire tract, Franklin Sweet had no title to the five acres that he could convey to Clement Sweet, and as soon as that delivery was made the mortgage, covering in terms the five acres, and given for the purchase-price thereof, attached as a lien. The conveyance of the 113 acres and the mortgage back thereon, must have preceded the deed of the five acres.

There is, therefore, no evidence tending to sustain the findings referred to, even if the defendants were not concluded by their answer.

I cannot find, in the record before us, sufficient evidence of acquiescence by the plaintiff in the trial of an issue outside of the pleadings to conclude her or to affect her rights in any way. She simply read in evidence the bond and mortgage, and the several assignments thereof, proved when and where each was recorded, and rested. The defendants read in evidence, without objection, the deed from Franklin Sweet to Clement Sweet. When they offered the release in evidence, it was objected to “as immaterial, and that execution and delivery thereof were not proven until June 8, 1882.”

Clement Sweet was then sworn as a witness, and testified • that he owned “ the five acres in dispute and covered by the mortgage; ” that he was present when the deed of the whole farm was given by Creed to Franklin Sweet, who paid $2,500 therefor, $500 in cash, and the balance by bond and mortgage; that he, the witness, paid $150 for the five acres, being part of

All concur with Potter, J., except Follett, Ch. J., and Vann, J., dissenting.

Judgment affirmed.