L. Grossman Sons, Inc. v. Crescione

Massachusetts Appeals Court

L. Grossman Sons, Inc. v. Crescione

357 N.E.2d 334, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 855

DecidedNovember 26, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 357 N.E.2d 334 (L. Grossman Sons, Inc. v. Crescione) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

L. Grossman Sons, Inc. v. Crescione, 357 N.E.2d 334, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 855 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

The “Findings, Rulings and Order for Decree” of the Land Court requiring reformation of a mortgage deed on the ground of mutual mistake, but subject to the right of the defendant trustee in bankruptcy of Samuel S. Crescione, an original mortgagor (see Section 70[c] [3] of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 110[c][3][1970]), were correct and a proper basis for the judgment which was entered. It is unnecessary to repeat the Land Court’s careful analysis and discussion. See also Hillside Co-op. Bank v. Cavanaugh, 232 Mass. 157, 161 (1919); In re Cobb, 14 F. Supp. 465 (E.D. Mich. 1936). The plaintiff, a successor to the original mortgagee who had foreclosed the mortgage, is not entitled to a more favorable judgment; and the defendants do not complain of its form or scope. Compare Hillside Co-op. Bank v. Cavanaugh, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The “Findings, Rulings and Order for Decree” of the Land Court requiring reformation of a mortgage deed on the ground of mutual mistake, but subject to the right of the defendant trustee in bankruptcy of Samuel S. Crescione, an original mortgagor (see Section 70[c] [3] of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 110[c][3][1970]), were correct and a proper basis for the judgment which was entered. It is unnecessary to repeat the Land Court’s careful analysis and discussion. See also Hillside Co-op. Bank v. Cavanaugh, 232 Mass. 157, 161 (1919); In re Cobb, 14 F. Supp. 465 (E.D. Mich. 1936). The plaintiff, a successor to the original mortgagee who had foreclosed the mortgage, is not entitled to a more favorable judgment; and the defendants do not complain of its form or scope. Compare Hillside Co-op. Bank v. Cavanaugh, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 N.E.2d 334, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-grossman-sons-inc-v-crescione-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack