Hart v. Monte Vista Building Ass'n

257 P. 1079, 82 Colo. 204, 1927 Colo. LEXIS 423
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJuly 5, 1927
DocketNo. 11,703.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 257 P. 1079 (Hart v. Monte Vista Building Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hart v. Monte Vista Building Ass'n, 257 P. 1079, 82 Colo. 204, 1927 Colo. LEXIS 423 (Colo. 1927).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

Dependant in error had a decree of foreclosure against plaintiffs in error, with a provision for execution against the defendants Hart, makers of the mortgage note, for any deficiency.

Marietta A. Hart was the owner of the mortgaged premises; she borrowed $800 of the building association, and she and Isaac Hart, her husband, gave a note and *205 mortgage to secure its payment. They afterwards bor-' rowed on note and second mortgage $400 of one En Earl, since deceased, whose heirs are the other plaintiffs in error.

Being pressed for payment, Mrs. Hart, on payment to her by one Hecker of $125, gave a quitclaim deed of the mortgaged property to the association. She claims that, in consideration of this deed, the association agreed that its note was satisfied and assumed the $400 note, so that she was discharged of both debts: The court’s findings were general for plaintiff on conflicting evidence, so these claims cannot be maintained here.

She further claims that upon the delivery of the quitclaim deed the mortgage interest merged in the fee and was extinct. The doctrine of merger, however, is not a rule of property; the question of merger depends upon intent (Shreve v. Harvey, 74 N. J. Eq. 336, 339, 70 Atl. 671; Chase v. Van Meter, 140 Ind. 321, 39 N. E. 455; Collinsville National Bank v. Esau, 74 Okl. 45, 47, 176 Pac. 514); and the court, by its general finding, has found that there was not an intent to merge. Neither can this claim, therefore, be maintained here.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Salazar v. Terry
911 P.2d 1086 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1996)
United States v. State of Colorado
872 F.2d 338 (Tenth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 P. 1079, 82 Colo. 204, 1927 Colo. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-monte-vista-building-assn-colo-1927.