Majority
Headnote
Mortgages (§ 6S4[2] )—Foreclosure Sale—Defects.The action is ejectment, and the question is whether the defendant Cabinet Land Company is entitled to the judgment that dismisses the plaintiffs upon the merits. The plaintiffs’ demurrer to the said defendant’s second defense was overruled, and thereupon a motion was made for judgment. In 1874, the land was conveyed to plaintiffs’ intestate, subject to a purchase-money mortgage. In the foreclosure of that mortgage in 1897, an affidavit attached to the judgment roll purported to show personal service of the summons and complaint upon the said intestate in 1899, but the pleadings allege that he died in 1890. The purchaser at the foreclosure sale made in 1903 assigned his bid to the Anonymous Company, which completed the purchase, received the referee’s deed in 1909, and thereupon conveyed to this defendant. The said defendant for its second defense, after recital of these matters, pleads:
“That thereafter and in or about March, 1909, this defendant entered peaceably into the actual possession of said lot No. 355, and it has continued and now is in possession thereof. That said entry was made under and by virtue of said judgment of foreclosure and sale and in reliance upon the fact that said Charles H. Schorr purported to have been actually served with the summons and complaint in said action and without any notice or knowledge whatsoever of the claim set forth in the complaint herein that the said Charles H. Schorr died before the date of said service and that he was not served in said action.”
Even though the sale was void as against the owner of the equity of redemption, in that he was not made a party to the foreclosure suit, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale became the assignee of the mortgage, and, if he entered lawfully into possession, becomes a mortgagee in possession. Townshend v. Thomson, 139 N. Y. 152 , 34 N. E. 891 ; Croner v. Cowdrey, 139 N. Y. 471 , 476, 34 N. E. 1061 , 36 Am. St. Rep. 716 ; Barson v. Mulligan, 191 N. Y. at page 320, 84 N. E. 75 , 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 151 ; Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. 519 , 19 L. Ed. 1002 ; Bryan v. Brasius, 162 U. S. at page 419, 16 Sup. Ct. 803 , 40 L. Ed. 1022 ; Romig v. Gillett, 187 U. S. 111 , 23 Sup. Ct. 40 , 47 L. Ed. 97 ; Phyfe v. Riley, 15 Wend. 248 , 30 Am. Dec. 55 ; Lowenfeld v. Ditchett, 114 App. Div. 56 , 99 N. Y. Supp. 724 . The entry made pursuant to.the judgment of foreclosure and sale and the referee’s deed thereupon was “lawful” within the purview of the rule. A similar
The rule of Townshend’s Case, supra, is not confined to the mortgagee as a purchaser at the sale, or to his assignee, but applies to any purchaser. Section 1632, Code of Civil Procedure; Continental Insurance Co. v. Reeve, 135 App. Div. 737 , 119 N. Y. Supp. 901 . Shriver v. Shriver, 86 N. Y. 575 , contra, relies wholly upon Watson v. Spence, 20 Wend. 260 , which was decided in 1810, prior to the enactment of the said section of the Code or of its parent statute (2 R. S. [1st Ed.] 192, pt. 3, c. 1, § 158).
The judgment is affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Cases cited
- Townshend v. Thomson 139 N. Y. 152 p. 778
- Croner v. Cowdrey 139 N. Y. 471 at 476, 34 p. 778
- Brobst v. Brock 10 Wall. 519 p. 778
- Bryan v. Brasius 40 L. Ed. 1022 p. 778
- Romig v. Gillett 187 U. S. 111 p. 778, p. 779
- Phyfe v. Riley 15 Wend. 248 p. 778
- Howell v. Leavitt 95 N. Y. 617 p. 779
- Barson v. Mulligan 191 N. Y. 306 p. 779
- Constant v. Barrett 13 Misc. Rep. 249 p. 779
- Becker v. McCrea 193 N. Y. 423 p. 779
- Shriver v. Shriver 86 N. Y. 575 p. 779
- Watson & Polhemus v. Spence 20 Wend. 260 p. 779