— The only break that appeared in Thompson’-'s title was the absence of a deed of the premises from I)/udley Selden, the admitted fountain head of title, to Andrew /McGown. But a recital of the existence of that deed is contained in the deed given by McGown to Patterson, March 1, 1828, and this, it is claimed, as to an ancient document, was sufficient notice within the rulings in Carver agt. Jackson (4 Peters, 83). Ho other proof was offered of the existence and loss of the deed, and it is at least a matter of serious doubt whether Willis, who does not claim under Patterson, and who is a stranger to his record title, is bound by it.
This question, however, is unimportant, in view of the ultimate disposition to be made of this case. The plaintiffs, as mortgagees, cannot maintain ejectment (Code Civil Pro., sec.
Judgment is therefore ordered that as to the defendant Thompson the complaint be dismissed, and that as against the other defendants the plaintiffs are entitled to a foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises.