Johnson v. Thompson

129 Mass. 398, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 260
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 11, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 129 Mass. 398 (Johnson v. Thompson) 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
Johnson v. Thompson, 129 Mass. 398, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 260 (Mass. 1880).

Opinion

Soule, J.

It is a settled principle of law that a grantee is estopped to deny the validity of any mortgage to which his deed recites that the conveyance to him is subject. Tuite v. Stevens, 98 Mass. 305. Howard v. Chase, 104 Mass. 249. We find nothing-in the facts of the case at bar which takes it out of the operation of this rule. The plaintiff took his title to the land described in his bill subject to the mortgage to the defendant Thompson. For this mortgage Thompson paid the amount which it purports to secure. It does not appear that he had any knowledge of the transactions by means of which the Frazier mortgage was discharged of record. And there is nothing in the case to indicate that his rights under his mortgage would be in any way affected if he had been informed of those transactions. On the facts existing when the bill was filed, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief against Thompson, whose right it was to proceed to execute the power of sale in his mortgage, by reason of default in the payment of the interest due, except that he was entitled to redeem the premises from the mortgage by paying the amount of principal and interest due under it. This right to redeem the plaintiff parted with when he conveyed his remaining interest in the land to Heywood. After that conveyance was made, he had no further interest in the mortgage held by Thompson, as it did not secure his obligation, nor in any of the questions which the bill was intended to settle. The decree dismissing the bill was therefore the proper one, and must be Affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

In re Solomon
40 F. Supp. 62 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1941)
Cleaveland v. Malden Savings Bank
291 Mass. 295 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Pearson v. Mulloney
194 N.E. 458 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Nichols v. Jackson County Bank
298 P. 908 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1931)
Baierl v. Riesenecker
227 N.W. 9 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1930)
Bailey v. Way
165 N.E. 388 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Dallas Lumber Co. v. Golde
12 S.W.2d 187 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1929)
Cheffee v. Geageah
149 N.E. 620 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Gaumer v. Register Publishing Co.
119 N.E. 728 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)
Ostran v. Bond
1918 OK 178 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Moore v. Boise Land & Orchard Co.
173 P. 117 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1918)
Board of Com'rs v. A. V. Wills & Sons
236 F. 362 (E.D. North Carolina, 1916)
Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Neighbor
1916 OK 51 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
United States Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Keahey
1916 OK 15 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Jones v. Perkins
1914 OK 558 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Federal Trust Co. v. Bristol County Street Railway Co.
105 N.E. 1064 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Gregory v. Arms
96 N.E. 196 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1911)
Fuller v. Devolld
128 S.W. 1011 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Sherman v. Goodwin
89 P. 517 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 Mass. 398, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-thompson-mass-1880.