History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jones v. Conde
6 Johns. Ch. 77
New York Court of Chancery
1822
Check Treatment
The Chancellor.

The rule is settled, that a mortgagee may sue, at the same time, at law, upon his bond, and in this Court upon his mortgage. The case of a mortgagee forms an exception to the general rule, that a party shall not be allowed to sue at law, and here, at the same time, for the same debt. The one remedy is in rem. and the other in personam ; and the general rule to which this case is an exception, applies only to cases where the demand at law and in equity are equally personal, and not where the cumulative remedy is in personam, while the other remedy is upon the pledge. (Booth v. Booth, 2 Atk. 343. Schoole v. Sall, 1 Sch. & Lef. 176 Lord Kenyon, in Smart v. Wolf 3 Term Rep. 342. Boyd v. Heinzelman, 1 Vesey & Beam. 381. Jackson v. Hull, 10 Johns. Rep. 481. Lord Erskine, in Perry v. Barker, 13 Vesey, 205. Dunkley v. Van Buren, 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 330.)

Motion denied, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Jones v. Conde
Court Name: New York Court of Chancery
Date Published: Apr 1, 1822
Citation: 6 Johns. Ch. 77
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.