Nelson v. . Loder
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Webb v. Citizens National Bank of Jeffersonville (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- Matter of Village Rathskeller, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1992)
- Kroener v. Mutual Life Ins. (7th Cir. 1924)
- In re Bacon (District Court, W.D. New York 1904)
- Cæsar v. Capell (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee 1897)
- Wright v. John A. Robinson & Co. (New York Supreme Court 1895)
- Riley v. Cheeseman (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- Nyctl 1999-1 Trust v. 573 Jackson Avenue Realty Corp. (N.Y. 2009)
- Fama v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1996)
- G. B. Seely's Son, Inc. v. Fulton-Edison, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- Fankuchen v. Fankuchen (Civil Court of the City of New York 1970)
- Mann v. Sterling Holding Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- Schnitzer v. Fruehauf Trailer Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Jefferson Title & Mortgage Corp. v. Dempsey (N.Y. 1935)
- Harris v. Darbee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1933)
- Persons v. Gardner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
- Schieck v. Donohue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1904)
- Sanford v. Savings & Loan Soc. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1893)
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
Whether the defendant is entitled to interest on the debt secured by her bond and mortgage to the date when she shall be paid by the plaintiff, or only to October 18, 1880, the date of the tender, is the only question involved in this appeal. In case the whole amount secured by a mortgage is due, the tender of the sum unpaid by the owner of the *292 mortgaged premises extinguishes the lien of the mortgage, though the tender is not kept good, but it does not discharge the promise or covenant to pay the debt for which the debtor remains liable. (Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 343; Werner v. Tuch, 127 id. 217; Mitchell v. Roberts, 17 Fed. Rep. 776 783; Haynes v. Thom, 28 N. H. 386,400; Chitty on Contracts [12th ed.], 787; Jones Mort. § 886.)
If a debtor wishes to extinguish his liability for'subsequently accruing interest, or demands some affirmative relief, he cannot retain the money, subject to his own use, but must devote it to the specific purpose of paying the debt, and put it within the power of the creditor to receive it at any time. He must keep his tender good. (Tuthill v. Morris, 81 N. Y. 94,100; Harris v. Jex, 55 id. 421, 425; Gyles v. Hall, 2 P. Wms. 378; Bishop v. Church, 2 Ves., Sr. 371; Garforth v. Bradley, 2 id. 675; Stow v. Russell, 36 Ill. 18; Jones on Mort. § 892; Thomas on Mort. § 399 ; Coote on Mort. [4th ed.] 885.)
A subsequent lienor’s right to redeem a prior security is derived from the owner of the mortgaged premises, and he is in this respect, in no better position than the owner, and his tender, if he wishes to stop interest or compel an assignment of the prior lien, must be as absolute and specific as that which the owner is required to make as a ground for affirmative relief or to stop the running of interest.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.