Lee v. Stone

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Lee v. Stone

42 A. 717, 21 R.I. 123, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 42

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 30, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A. 717 (Lee v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. Stone, 42 A. 717, 21 R.I. 123, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 42 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) Our opinion is that the demurrer must be sustained because the bill does not show the terms upon which' the mortgages were to be given, either as to length of time they were to run or as to whether they were to carry interest, and, if so, at what rate. Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516; Schmelling v. Kriesel, 45 Wis. 325.

We think that the identity of the land may be shown by parol. Ives v. Armstrong, 5 R. I. 567; Waring v. Ayres, 40 N. Y. 357; Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545.

The bill sets out a refusal of the respondent to carry out the contract as an excuse for not tendering the deed within the thirty days stipulated in the memorandum. We think that such refusal was a sufficient excuse. Bicknell v. Waterman, 5 R. I. 43.

Whether allegations, to be proved by parol, showing the terms of the mortgage, could be sustained, we do not decide.

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