Fuller v. Eddy

Supreme Court of Vermont

Fuller v. Eddy

49 Vt. 11

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedAugust 15, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 49 Vt. 11 (Fuller v. Eddy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. Eddy, 49 Vt. 11 (Vt. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Royce, J.

The plaintiff claimed to recover upon the ground that the entry of the defendant upon the premises described in his declaration was unlawful. The defendant was mortgagee of the premises, and the plaintiff was in possession as mortgagor, or claiming under the mortgagor after condition broken. The right of the mortgagee to peaceably enter upon, and take possession of, the premises mortgaged, after condition broken, has long been recognized in this state. Wilson v. Hooper & Downer, 13 Vt. 653 ; Lynde v. Matthews, 19 Vt. 322. The court have found [13]*13that the entry complained of was quiet, and not resisted, though not consented to by the plaintiff’s boy who was left in charge of the house at the time the entry was made. We think this was such an entry upon, and taking possession of, the mortgaged premises as the defendant might lawfully make. The entry was given by law, and was not made “ with strong hand, nor with multitude of people,” so it did not come within the statute which prohibits a forcible entry, and punishes persons who are found guilty of making one.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Royce, J.

The plaintiff claimed to recover upon the ground that the entry of the defendant upon the premises described in his declaration was unlawful. The defendant was mortgagee of the premises, and the plaintiff was in possession as mortgagor, or claiming under the mortgagor after condition broken. The right of the mortgagee to peaceably enter upon, and take possession of, the premises mortgaged, after condition broken, has long been recognized in this state. Wilson v. Hooper & Downer, 13 Vt. 653 ; Lynde v. Matthews, 19 Vt. 322. The court have found [13]*13that the entry complained of was quiet, and not resisted, though not consented to by the plaintiff’s boy who was left in charge of the house at the time the entry was made. We think this was such an entry upon, and taking possession of, the mortgaged premises as the defendant might lawfully make. The entry was given by law, and was not made “ with strong hand, nor with multitude of people,” so it did not come within the statute which prohibits a forcible entry, and punishes persons who are found guilty of making one.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Vt. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-eddy-vt-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack