New York Court of Appeals, 1887

Briggs v. Langford

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 20, 1887 · Andrews

107 N.Y. 680; 1 Silv. Ct. App. 553; 12 N.Y. St. Rep. 461

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Sparling v. Wells (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
Baird v. Baird (N.Y. 1895)
In re Levine (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1982)
Lincoln First Bank, N.A. v. Bank of New York (In re Levine) (District Court, S.D. New York 1982)
Mercogliano Lumber Corp. v. Sea Cliff Homes, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1961)
United States Trust Co. v. Frelinghuysen (N.Y. 1942)
Liebowitz v. Arrow Roofing Co. (N.Y. 1932)
Chesser v. Chesser (Fla. 1914)
Schlitz v. Koch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1910)
Baird v. Baird (New York Supreme Court 1894)
Rapps v. Gotleib (New York Supreme Court 1893)
Devlin v. Quigg (Minn. 1890)
Hill v. . Hoole (N.Y. 1889)

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 following is the mem. of opinion:

“We think that the trial court erred in overruling the offer of the plaintiff to prove that the mortgage was given for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of the mortgagor, and upon no other consideration. The plaintiff paid the full value of the land upon the assurance of Day that it was free from incumbrances. Day is dead and his estate is insolvent, and there is no available remedy on the covenants in the deed. If the mortgage was without consideration it could not be enforced against Day although it was given to cover up his property and defraud his creditors. (Wearse v. Peirce, 24 *681Pick. 141.) The defense of want of consideration is equally available against Langford, the assignee of the mortgage, as against Heath, the mortgagee, for he stands in respect to the security in place of his assignor; and even if he is a bona fide purchaser, he is not exempt from the defense of want of consideration. (Jones on Mortgages, § 843, and cases cited; Bush v. Lathrop, 22 N. Y. 535.)

WilUam H. Henderson for appellant. Worthington Froihingham for respondents.

“ The plaintiff occupies a position quite as favorable at least as that of the mortgagor. He paid the full value of the land and upon the plainest principles of justice he is entitled to assail the validity of any pretended liens thereon. Upon the facts found it is difficult to resist the suspicion that this is an attempt to enforce a void mortgage, and, under cover of pretended transfers and assignments, to consummate a fraud upon the plaintiff. It is a case where all possible light should be thrown on the transaction.

“ The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.”

Andrews, J.,

reads for reversal and new trial.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.