Carey v. Rawson
Opinion
without hesitation, decided that the two deeds must be treated as parts of one transaction, and together constituted a mortgage ; and that the tenant, having confessed the forfeiture, should be heard in chancery.
[Flagg vs. Mann, 2 Sumn. 486.— Van Buren vs..Olmstead, 5 Paige, 9. — James vs. Johnson, 6 Johns. Ch. 417. — 2 Cow. 246.— Day vs. Dunham, 2 Johns. Ch. 289. — 15 Johns. 555. — Hicks vs. Hicks, 5 Gill & Johns. 76. — Edrington vs. Harper, 3 J. J. Marsh. 356. — Harrison & Al. vs. The Trustees of Phillips Academy, 12 Mass. 456. — Rice vs. Rice, 4 Pick. 349.—Newhall vs. Burt & Al. 7 Pick. 157.— Sed vide Flagg vs. Mann, 11 Pick. 475. — Bodwell vs. Webster, 13 Pick. 411. — Ed.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
8 Mass. 159 (Carey v. Rawson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.