Harvey v. Smith

61 N.E. 217, 179 Mass. 592, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 621
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 17, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 N.E. 217 (Harvey v. Smith) 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
Harvey v. Smith, 61 N.E. 217, 179 Mass. 592, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 621 (Mass. 1901).

Opinion

Kkowlton, J.

The power of sale contained in the mortgage is a power coupled with an interest, and neither the mortgagor nor the equitable owner that he represents can do anything to defeat the right of the mortgagees to foreclose by a sale under the power. The bankruptcy of the mortgagor would not affect the defendant’s rights. Hall v. Bliss, 118 Mass. 554.

The defendants are not parties to the suit in which the injunction was issued, and their rights are not affected by the injunction.

The admission of the defendant Truesdell, in his answer, does not bind the defendant Smith, who denied in his answer that Truesdell, or Weston, his attorney, who had the mortgage in his possession, objected to the proposed foreclosure, and averred that his action in foreclosing was with the knowledge and approval of Truesdell and Weston. As against Smith, therefore, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove his allegations, and the finding, of the master against him is conclusive. Moreover, Trues-dell in his answer only suggested that for certain reasons the foreclosure ought not to proceed until an account was taken, but at the hearing an agreement was made between the parties as to the state of the account, and both defendants agreed that an account was no longer necessary.

The alleged agreement in regard to the stock of the American Palace Car Company of Maine was immaterial, and the master rightly excluded the evidence of it. The plaintiff’s exceptions to the report are without merit.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Candler v. Wallace Candler, Inc.
113 N.W.2d 901 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1962)
Harlow Realty Co. v. Cotter
187 N.E. 118 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 N.E. 217, 179 Mass. 592, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-smith-mass-1901.