Carey v. Rawson
This text of 8 Mass. 159 (Carey v. Rawson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Mass. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-rawson-mass-1811.