In re Starr Bros. Bell Co.

Second Circuit

In re Starr Bros. Bell Co.

218 F.2d 641

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 4, 1955·No. No. 62, Docket 23159·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Section 7265 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, 1949 Revision, requires the mortgage to set forth “the amount of the debt and the terms of repayment.” This requirement was fully satisfied by incorporating in the mortgage a copy of the note secured thereby. The appellant seems to argue that the terms of repayment are too indefinite to constitute a valid contract. This contention is one which stems not at all from the statute on which the appellant relies but must depend upon the general law of contracts. He cites no case to support his position. Crane v. Deming, 7 Conn. 387 is against it. The appeal is without merit and the order is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Smith, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 952.

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

PER CURIAM.

Section 7265 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, 1949 Revision, requires the mortgage to set forth “the amount of the debt and the terms of repayment.” This requirement was fully satisfied by incorporating in the mortgage a copy of the note secured thereby. The appellant seems to argue that the terms of repayment are too indefinite to constitute a valid contract. This contention is one which stems not at all from the statute on which the appellant relies but must depend upon the general law of contracts. He cites no case to support his position. Crane v. Deming, 7 Conn. 387 is against it. The appeal is without merit and the order is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Smith, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 952.

In re Starr Bros. Bell Co., 218 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

218 F.2d 641 (In re Starr Bros. Bell Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related