Majority
Headnote
Recording Hr# — the. assignee of a mortgage is a, purchaser, t7ie assignment is a conveyance.The mortgage which the plaintiffs seek to set aside Avas executed January 11, 1886, was recorded February 10, 1886, at Avliich dates Algie, the mortgagor, owned the fee of the mortgaged premises. May 4, 1886, Golding, the mortgagee, assigned the mortgage to Donovan in part payment of a debt due from Golding to Donovan, and the assignment was recorded May 7, 1886. When the assignment Avas executed and recorded Algie Avas still the owner of the
A mortgagee is a “ purchaser ” within the Recording Act, and so is an assignee of a mortgage (1 R. S. 762, § 37), and a mortgage is a “conveyance” within the act, and so is an assignment of a mortgage ( 1 R. 8 . 762, § 38). The Recording Act is for the protection of “ purchasers ” by deed, mortgage or by assignment of a mortgage, in good faith and for value, from unknown conveyances, rights and equities arising under them and connected with the title, hut not for the protection of rights arising out of the consideration of the conveyances. The evidence given in behalf of the plaintiffs shows that, at the time Golding assigned this mortgage, it was a lien on the premises for $574.41, with interest from March 10, 1886, and his assignee, Donovan, acquired all the rights of the mortgagee. The plaintiffs, being subsequent purchasers of the premises from Algie, took them subject to the lights of Donovan, the assignee of the mortgage, who acquired a perfect title to it, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a right to have it' canceled of record as a cloud on their title. If Algie had paid the mortgage May 14, 1886, in good faith and without notice of its assignment to Donovan, and had taken a satisfaction, the case would have been within section 41 (IR. S. 763),which provides : “ The recording of an assignment of a mortgage shall not bo deemed in itself notice of such assignment to a mortgagor, his heirs or personal representatives, so as to invalidate any payment made by them or either of them to the mortgagee.” The plaintiffs did not prove that they had paid Golding or any one any part of the $574.41 either before or subsequent, to the satisfaction; but had they proved payments made to the mortgagee subsequent to, the
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien, J., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Cases cited
- Brewster v. Carnes 103 N. Y. 556 p. 537