Summary
In Fitts v. Beardsley (28 N.Y. St. Repr. 658; affd. without opinion, 126 N.Y. 645) the assignment was of a mortgage alone "with all sums of money due and to grow due thereon," but it appeared that there was no bond or other obligation; that the mortgage itself recited that it was given "in consideration of the sum of $40,000," and as security for that sum. The court "for the purposes of this litigation," as it expressly said, treated the mortgage as representing both the debt and the security, and affirmed the validity of the assignment.
Summary of this case from Williams v. CornellOpinion
Argued March 11, 1891
Decided April 14, 1891
John D. Teller for appellant.
H.V. Howland and Sereno E. Payne for respondent.
Agree to affirm on opinion below.
All concur.
Judgments affirmed.