Morris v. . Tuthill
Cases that cite this one
38 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Weinberg v. G.S.W. Realty Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1982)
- Beardsley v. Kilmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1922)
- Venner v. Denver Union Water Co. (Arapahoe County District Court 1902)
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. New York & Northern Railway Co. (N.Y. 1896)
- Tillinghast v. Troy & Boston Railroad (New York Supreme Court 1888)
- Estate of Rinaldi v. Rinaldi (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
- Southern Maryland Oil, Inc. v. Kaminetz (Md. 1971)
- Steward v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- Goldberger v. Charles Kannel Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1957)
- Lapides v. Finkel (New York Supreme Court 1950)
- Bachrach v. Washington United Cooperative, Inc. (Md. 1943)
- Fleischer v. Terker (N.Y. 1932)
- Johnson v. King-Richardson Co. (1st Cir. 1930)
- Liebman v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp. (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1930)
- Terry v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co. (New York Supreme Court 1927)
- Carroll Building Corp. v. Louis Greenberg Plumbing Supplies, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1926)
- W.D. Cashin Co. v. Alamac Hotel Co., Inc. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1925)
- Hirshfield v. Craig (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1924)
- Pierce v. Pierce (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
- North Central Realty Co. v. Blackman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1911)
- Curtis v. Douglass (City of New York Municipal Court 1911)
- Funck v. Farmers Elevator Co. (Iowa 1909)
- Crocheron v. Savage (N.J. 1909)
- Venner v. Denver Union Water Co. (Colo. 1907)
- Weis v. Levy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1905)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The facts stated in the second answer of the appellant as amended, unexplained and uncontradicted, might justify the inference that the plaintiff and the former holders and owners of the mortgages in suit have acted in concert, with a view unnecessarily to harass and oppress the appellant, and with intent to prevent the payment of the amounts due upon the securities, to the end that the equity of redemption might be foreclosed, and they become the purchasers of the fee of the property for less than its value. But they do not tend to show that the mortgages have been satisfied or that the full amount claimed is not due thereon, or that the plaintiff is not the legal holder and owner, and entitled to maintain this action. The proceedings for the foreclosure by advertisement, and the means taken to obstruct and embarrass the appellant in his efforts to raise the money to redeem his property and prevent the sale, may be laid out of view, as these proceedings were discontinued.
The motives of the former owner of the mortgages in selling, or of the plaintiffs in buying them, are not material, and the appellant has no concern with the consideration of the assignment. It is sufficient that the mortgage debt is due, and has been transferred to and is now owned by the plaintiff. He may have bought it from motives of malice toward the defendant and solely with a view to sue upon them, and the former owner from a like motive may have transferred them without consideration, but this would not constitute a *578 defense to the action. The appellant can only arrest the action by paying the amount due, or tendering the same and bringing it into court. The facts statéd do not constitute an equitable defense to the mortgages, or impeach the plaintiff's title.
The matters stated are wholly irrelevant, and the answer was properly stricken out.
The order must be affirmed.
All concur. .
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.