Longo v. Depositors Trust Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Longo v. Depositors Trust Co.

245 N.E.2d 760, 355 Mass. 793, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 952

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 4, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 245 N.E.2d 760 (Longo v. Depositors Trust Co.) 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

Longo v. Depositors Trust Co., 245 N.E.2d 760, 355 Mass. 793, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 952 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff mortgagor by his amended bill in equity seeks to restrain the defendant mortgagee from proceeding with a foreclosure of the mortgaged premises. The defendant’s demurrer to the amended bill was sustained. The plaintiff appeals from a final decree dismissing the bill. There was no error. The amended bill shows on its face noncompliance with the conditions of the [794]*794mortgage. Although the amended bill alleges the existence of an oral "agreement” modifying the conditions of the mortgage and compliance with the new conditions, it fails to allege a primary fact necessary to the suit. It is not alleged that the oral “agreement” was supported by consideration. Lane v. Sullivan, 302 Mass. 213. Beckford v. Beckford, 329 Mass. 389.

Athos V. Longo, pro se, submitted a brief.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

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

The plaintiff mortgagor by his amended bill in equity seeks to restrain the defendant mortgagee from proceeding with a foreclosure of the mortgaged premises. The defendant’s demurrer to the amended bill was sustained. The plaintiff appeals from a final decree dismissing the bill. There was no error. The amended bill shows on its face noncompliance with the conditions of the [794]*794mortgage. Although the amended bill alleges the existence of an oral "agreement” modifying the conditions of the mortgage and compliance with the new conditions, it fails to allege a primary fact necessary to the suit. It is not alleged that the oral “agreement” was supported by consideration. Lane v. Sullivan, 302 Mass. 213. Beckford v. Beckford, 329 Mass. 389.

Athos V. Longo, pro se, submitted a brief.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 N.E.2d 760, 355 Mass. 793, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longo-v-depositors-trust-co-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack