Eaton v. Tuson

13 N.E. 488, 145 Mass. 218, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 53
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 13 N.E. 488 (Eaton v. Tuson) 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.

Bluebook
Eaton v. Tuson, 13 N.E. 488, 145 Mass. 218, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 53 (Mass. 1887).

Opinion

Field, J.

The question in this case is whether the plaintiff’s title was subject to the unrecorded mortgage of the defendant. The first two mortgages given to the plaintiff, we think, clearly purport to convey to the plaintiff the property, subject to the mortgage to the defendant; or, in other words, only to convey the mortgagor’s right of redeeming the property from the mortgage to the defendant. The third mortgage to the plaintiff is of ‘‘ all the personal property mortgaged to grantee by mortgage dated October 13, 1883, and recorded with Worcester city mortgages of personal property, to which reference is had for a description.” The mortgage dated October 13, 1883, is made expressly subject to the incumbrances mentioned in the prior mortgage of October 12, 1883, and the mortgage to the defendant is an incumbrance expressly mentioned in this mortgage of October 12,1883. The mortgage of October 17,1883, therefore, only conveyed to the plaintiff the mortgagor’s right of redemption from the mortgage to the defendant. The case is governed by Tuite v. Stevens, 98 Mass. 305, Howard v. Chase, 104 Mass. 249, and Pecker v. Silsby, 123 Mass. 108.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Piea Realty Co. Inc. v. Papuzynski
172 N.E.2d 841 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)
Connecticut Valley Onion Co. v. Pielock
183 N.E. 526 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Haney v. Holt
16 S.W.2d 463 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1929)
Nation v. Planters and Mechanics Bank
1911 OK 415 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Whitney v. Browne
62 N.E. 979 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Mead v. Maberry
62 Mo. App. 557 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 N.E. 488, 145 Mass. 218, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-tuson-mass-1887.