Lester v. Citizens' Savings Bank

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Lester v. Citizens' Savings Bank

20 A. 231, 17 R.I. 88, 1890 R.I. LEXIS 51

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJuly 5, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A. 231 (Lester v. Citizens' Savings Bank) 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

Lester v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 20 A. 231, 17 R.I. 88, 1890 R.I. LEXIS 51 (R.I. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a bill to set aside a mortgagee’s deed and to redeem the mortgage, on the ground that the sale, which was advertised to take place April 11, A. D. 1885, at twelve o’clock noon, was not made at that hour. Some of the testimony introduced supports the bill, but more of it, in our opinion, goes to show that the sale, though much delayed, took place, or was at least begun, before the appointed hour had expired. The mortgagee’s affidavit, which the statute makes prima facie evidence, *89 states that the sale was at the hour. Our conclusion is, that the sale occurred between half past twelve and one o’clock, and that it was valid ; since, for the purposes of the sale, the hour of twelve must be taken to last until the hour of one begins, if the attendance continues. McGovern v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co., 109 Ill. 151. We think the testimony shows that the attendance did continue with but slight changes, the auctioneer, who was holding an auction near by, being momentarily expected. There is no satisfactory evidence that any person intending to bid left before the bidding began.

John E. Lester, Amasa M. Eaton & Herbert Almy, for complainant. James M. Ripley, Samuel Ames & Nathan H. Truman, for respondents.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a bill to set aside a mortgagee’s deed and to redeem the mortgage, on the ground that the sale, which was advertised to take place April 11, A. D. 1885, at twelve o’clock noon, was not made at that hour. Some of the testimony introduced supports the bill, but more of it, in our opinion, goes to show that the sale, though much delayed, took place, or was at least begun, before the appointed hour had expired. The mortgagee’s affidavit, which the statute makes prima facie evidence, *89 states that the sale was at the hour. Our conclusion is, that the sale occurred between half past twelve and one o’clock, and that it was valid ; since, for the purposes of the sale, the hour of twelve must be taken to last until the hour of one begins, if the attendance continues. McGovern v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co., 109 Ill. 151. We think the testimony shows that the attendance did continue with but slight changes, the auctioneer, who was holding an auction near by, being momentarily expected. There is no satisfactory evidence that any person intending to bid left before the bidding began.

John E. Lester, Amasa M. Eaton & Herbert Almy, for complainant. James M. Ripley, Samuel Ames & Nathan H. Truman, for respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A. 231, 17 R.I. 88, 1890 R.I. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lester-v-citizens-savings-bank-ri-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack