History
  • No items yet
midpage
Van Waggoner v. McEwen
2 N.J. Eq. 412
New York Court of Chancery
1841
Check Treatment
The Chancellor.

The defence set up cannot avail the defendant in this action. Here is no eviction or disturbance of the defendant, or even ejectment brought, and there never may be. If a suit was pending to try the title, or the defendant had been dispossessed, there would be propriety in resisting the foreclosure of the mortgage. This distinction is recognized in the case of Johnson v. Gere, 2 John. Chan. R. 547, and in Shannon v. Marselis and others, Saxton, 426. Should the heirs of Tuers hereafter dispossess the defendant, he must resort to his action on the covenants in his deed. This court will not undertake to settle the question of title between the defendant and the heirs of Tuers. The heirs are not even parties here, and without first settling that question the defence set up is of *414no avail whatever. The whole case made is nothing more than an allegation of .an outstanding title.

There must be .a reference to a master to ascertain the amount due on complainant’s mortgage.

'.Order accordingly..

Case Details

Case Name: Van Waggoner v. McEwen
Court Name: New York Court of Chancery
Date Published: Apr 15, 1841
Citation: 2 N.J. Eq. 412
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.