Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

WILLIAM H. HAYS et al., Respondents, v. MARIA H. THOMAE, impleaded, etc., Appellant.

RAPALLO, J.

We think that this action was unnecessary. The decree made and entered before the death of the mortgagors could be executed notwithstanding their death, and binds all persons claiming any interest under them. It is to be enforced only by a sale of their interest in the property. No part of it is to be enforced in personam. The case of Harrison v. Simons (3 Edw. Ch. R., 394) is in point, and was, we think, correctly decided. There the death took place before enrollment of the decree. The court held that the death did not prevent the enrollment, and consequently did not prevent the execution of the decree, and denied the application to revive, as unnecessary.

The court below should have dismissed the complaint, and, under the circumstances of the case, it would have been proper to dismiss it without costs.

The judgment should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed without costs to either party in the court below, but with costs to the appellant of the appeal to this court.

All concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HAYS ET AL. v. THOMAE
(May 26, 1874)