Julien v. Lalor
Opinion of the Court
The appellant was a 'purchaser M foreclosure. He objected to the title on the ground that the only person sued as the owner of the equity of redemption had no interest in the property. One John
An inspection of this order shows that the accounting embraced not only the acts of Mr. Lilienthal himself, but those of his predecessors in the trust. There is a recital to the effect “that such assignees have accounted for all the property and the estate embraced in the said assignment.” This, of course, would include the mortgaged premises in suit. Then the order proceeds to adjudge that the assignees and substituted assignee have duly accounted for all the property and estate of John D. Phillips conveyed by the assignment and all the proceeds thereof which have come to their possession ; and furthermore that the estates- of the original assignees “ and the said Jesse "W". Lilienthal and their respective bondsmen be and they are hereby discharged of and from all liability for, upon, or by reason of any matter or thing contained in their said accounts, or in relation to or respect of said assigned estate or the proceeds thereof,” except as to $7,151.91, a balance of moneys remaining in the hands of the substituted assignee. Out of this balance he was directed to make certain payments and to pay a dividend to the creditors, and the order finally provided, “ that upon said payment being made said Jesse ~W. Lilienthal be discharged from all further liability in reference to said assignment and that his bond be canceled.”
The jurisdiction of the court on an accounting is “ to discharge the assignee and his surety at any time upon performance of the decree, from all further Lability upon matters included in the accounting, to creditors appearing and to creditors not having appeared after due citation, or not having presented their claims after due advertisement.” (Laws of 1877, chap. 466, § 20, sub. 5.)
The order in question could have no greater effect than was authorized by this provision of the statute.
Under these circumstances the court below was right in holding that he had not been divested, by the decree of the Court of Common Pleas, of the title to the premises, upon which the mortgage was foreclosed. No other question was discussed by counsel for the appellant upon the argument of the appeal, and, therefore, we have considered no other. Our conclusion is that the order under review should be affirmed, with costs.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.