Hennessey v. Andrews
This text of 60 Mass. 170 (Hennessey v. Andrews) 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.
Opinion
The only question in this case is, whether this complaint for flowing is rightly brought against Charles Andrews, as owner. Rev. Sts. c. 116, § 6.
The respondent insists that he was not owner, but only a mortgagee not in possession, because the deed, which he had taken of Wood, in November, 1849, was accompanied by a bond of defeasance, which made it in law a mortgage. But the answer, and we think it decisive, is, that the bond of defeasance was not registered, until after the complainant’s suit [172]*172was brought, and by statute was wholly inoperative and void, as a defeasance, against any person but the maker and his heirs or devisees, or persons having actual notice of such defeasance. Rev. Sts. c. 59, § 27. The continued possession by the grantor is no evidence of notice of the defeasance. Newhall v. Pierce, 5 Pick. 450; Newhall v. Burt, 7 Pick. 157.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 Mass. 170, 6 Allen 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennessey-v-andrews-mass-1850.