Costigan v. Costigan

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Costigan v. Costigan

40 A. 341, 20 R.I. 535, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 99

DecidedMay 20, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A. 341 (Costigan v. Costigan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Costigan v. Costigan, 40 A. 341, 20 R.I. 535, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 99 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION.

Per Curiam.

The court is of opinion that no costs should he awarded to either party; for this reason:

. The relation of the parties was practically that of mortgagor and mortgagee.

While, as a general rule, a mortgagee is entitled to costs on a bill to redeem, yet in cases of improper conduct on his part, Bowen v. Atwood, 10 R. I. 302, and of his denial of a right to redeem, Sessions v. Richmond, 1 R. I. 298, costs are not awarded to him. The principal case is of the latter character. The defence was that of absolute ownership. There were two cases, because there were two deeds of separate estates, but they were substantially one estate and the decision in the second case was upon that fact.

The respondent held the title as a security for debt; and *537 both parties denied this fact, in the face of the plain provisions of the declaration of trust.

Charles A. Wilson and Thomas A. Jenckes, for complainant. John C. Quinn, for respondent.

The decrees submitted, without costs, are ordered to be entered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION.

Per Curiam.

The court is of opinion that no costs should he awarded to either party; for this reason:

. The relation of the parties was practically that of mortgagor and mortgagee.

While, as a general rule, a mortgagee is entitled to costs on a bill to redeem, yet in cases of improper conduct on his part, Bowen v. Atwood, 10 R. I. 302, and of his denial of a right to redeem, Sessions v. Richmond, 1 R. I. 298, costs are not awarded to him. The principal case is of the latter character. The defence was that of absolute ownership. There were two cases, because there were two deeds of separate estates, but they were substantially one estate and the decision in the second case was upon that fact.

The respondent held the title as a security for debt; and *537 both parties denied this fact, in the face of the plain provisions of the declaration of trust.

Charles A. Wilson and Thomas A. Jenckes, for complainant. John C. Quinn, for respondent.

The decrees submitted, without costs, are ordered to be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A. 341, 20 R.I. 535, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costigan-v-costigan-ri-1898.