Plaintiff  in  a  foreclosure  cannot  have  contingent  personal  judg-
ment against  some  of  the  defendants,  before  final  judgment  of  fore-
closure. Cobb  V.  Thmviton,  8  How.  66.  After  one  of  two  joint
purchasers,  who  assumed  an  existing  mortgage,  has  paid  his  share
of  the  debt,  the  court  will  direct  the  interest  of  the  other  purchaser
to  be  first  applied  in  payment  of  the  mortgage.  Cornell  v.  Pres-
cott,  2  Barb.  16.  In  Ferguson  v.  Kimball,  3  Barb.  Cli.  616 ;  modi-
fied, 2  N.  Y.  360,  the  form  and  requisites  of  a  judginentof  foreclosure
and  sale  are  given.  Where  mortgage  is  conditioned  for  support  of
mortgagee,  several  owners  of  difl'erent  parcels  of  mortgaged  premises
are  bound  to  contribute  to  her  support,  ratably.  But  in  foreclosure
of  a  mortgage,  conditioned  for  the  support  of  the  mortgagee,  no  re-
lief can  be  granted  for  a  neglect  to  support  aftpr  the  commencement
of  the  action.  Morrison  v.  Morrison,  4  Hun,  410.  For  form  of
judgment  where  there  is  a  right  to  move  a  building,  see  Brown  v-
Keeneij  Cheese  Association,  69  N.  Y.  242.  Where  prior  lessors,  made
parties,  set  up  their  priority,  the  complaint  should  be  dismissed  as  to
them ;  judgment  establishing  their  priority  and  amount  should  not
be  given  against  the  other  defendants.  Payn  v.  Grant,  23  Hun,
134.  Prior  incumbrancers  may  be  made  parties,  for  the  purpose  of
having  the  amount  of  their  incumbrances  ascertained  and  paid  off,
but  if  their  priority  is  not  stated  in  the  complaint,  or  provided  for
in  the  judgment,  they  do  not  lose  any  rights  by  failing  to  answer,
and  do  not  waive  priority  of  their  liens  unless  the  land  was  sold  free
of  their  liens,  with  their  consent.  Emigrant  Industrial  Savings
Bank  v.  Goldman,  75  N.  Y.  127.  But  it  seems  that  one  M-ho
claims  under  an  unrecorded  deed  prior  to  the  mortgage  is  a  proper
defendant,  and  the  question  of  priority  is  necessarily  involved  and
proper  to  be  determined  in  the  action.  Brown  v.  Yolkening,  G4
N.  Y.  76.
