made, upon all the 14 houses, a third blanket mortgage of $5,000 to said Asa W. Parker, also payable on demand. (6) Sophie G. Parker, assignee of John Hart, foreclosed the second blanket mortgage, ($6,000,) and at that sale, on the lltli day of March, 1886, the plaintiff in this action bought one house, Ho. 12; Mr. Pundt, defendant, bought one, Ho. 10; and Mrs. Maben bought one, Ho. 3, afterwards conveyed to defendant Brown; and Asa W. Parker bought eight others, Hos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14. The amount due on said decree was paid without selling the other houses. (7) Asa W. Parker foreclosed the third blanket mortgage, and at the sale under the decree, June, 1886, he sold the three houses and lots not sold under his wife’s former decree, Hos. 1, 2 and 4, and they were bought by her, Sophie G. Parker. (8) Meanwhile, Asa W. Parker, as owner of the third blanket mortgage, had redeemed from the first mortgages, and paid the amounts to the general synod and the board of education, and taken assignments of the mortgages, and of the 14 foreclosure suits then pending in name of Ralph G. Packard, a defendant herein, as his appointee. (9) Ralph G. Packard, his appointee, discontinued the suits against the two houses and lots 13 and 14, on Thirteenth and Fourteenth streets, and assigned the two first mortgages to one Mrs. Mary E. Sweezy, a client of Parker, and she immediately brought foreclosure, making the Packards, owners of the $14,000 notes, parties, and recorded judgment of foreclosure thereunder, and the houses were sold to one Daniel Doody. All this was done while the suit at bar was pending, and without notice to any of the other owners of the rest of the lots. The court at special term found that this was a scheme to release the two houses and lots 13 and 14 from the $14,000 mortgage, and to load the remaining 12 houses and lots with the whole amount of the mortgage, and decreed that Packard, assignee of Asa W. Parker, the owner of the $14,000 first blanket mortgage, must deduct from the mortgage the amount properly chargeable upon those two houses, and, in that view, estimated their value. It further found the respective value of each of the 14 houses and lots separately, the amount due upon the mortgage, and the amount equitably chargeable upon each house and lot. The judgment was that plaintiff (the owner of one of the lots) must within 30 days pay the full amount of the mortgage as found due, and that thereafter the owner of each of the other lots shall pay to plaintiff the amount found equitably chargeable upon his house, or, in default of payment, that his house and lot shall be sold to pay the same. Pundt and Brown, defendants, appeal, alleging error in the conclusions of law and in the form of the judgment; the defendants Parkers and Packards alleging error in the findings as to the facts.
W. S. Logan, for Coffin and Jones, plaintiffs. E. G. Nelson, for defendants Ralph G. and Josiah S. Packard. A. W. Parker, for defendants Asa W. and Sophie G. Parker. Bristow, Peet & Opdyke, (M. H. Topping, of counsel,) for defendants Pundt and Brown.
The findings of fact are fully sustained by the evidence. Upon those facts the right of the plaintiff to relief" is unquestionable. The equitable principle is that the burden which rests upon the whole property shall be apportioned among the various parcels in proportion to their value. The doctrine is ancient and well established, and is so familiar as not to require the citation of authorities, which are abundant. The right of the mortgagee is to have his money. The right of the various owners is that each may have his property discharged, upon paying his proportionate part of the burden, so far as may be, without endangering the mortgagee’s complete security. The judgment below is in the main correct, but a slight modification should be made, which will more fully protect the rights of the appellants Pundt and Brown. The decree jbelow puts upon the plaintiff the duty to pay the whole mortgage debt within 30 days. Suppose lie fails to do that, where will the other owners be left? The judgment should be modified by directing