Ludlow Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Knight

Supreme Court of Vermont

Ludlow Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Knight

99 A. 633, 91 Vt. 172, 1917 Vt. LEXIS 226

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJanuary 18, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 99 A. 633 (Ludlow Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Knight) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ludlow Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Knight, 99 A. 633, 91 Vt. 172, 1917 Vt. LEXIS 226 (Vt. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought a petition in chancery therein seeking to foreclose a mortgage covering premises on which defendant held a second mortgage. The defendant seasonably entered his appearance therein, but did not make answer or file an affidavit of defence. Ch. Rule 38. In due course, the petition was taken as confessed, and the sum due in equity was found by the clerk. From this assessment the defendant appealed to the chancellor. The assessment was sustained and a decree made accordingly. The defendant seasonably filed his motion for an appeal, but the chancellor did not grant permission therefor. The plaintiff files a motion to dismiss this attempted appeal.

Chancery appeals are a matter of statute, and it is only by force of the statute that such an appeal can be had. Gove v. Gove’s Adm’r, 87 Vt. 468, 89 Atl. 868. By the express terms of P. S. 1307, an appeal from a decree of foreclosure can only be had by permission of the court. And this is an appeal or at^ tempted appeal from a decree of foreclosure, though the only controversy is over the sum due in equity. But this fact does not change the character of the decree. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the plain and positive terms of the statute. The case is not here, but remains in the court of chancery. Abbott v. Sanders, 83 Vt. 165, 74 Atl. 1058; Tudor v. Kennett, 88 Vt. 291, 92 Atl. 213.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought a petition in chancery therein seeking to foreclose a mortgage covering premises on which defendant held a second mortgage. The defendant seasonably entered his appearance therein, but did not make answer or file an affidavit of defence. Ch. Rule 38. In due course, the petition was taken as confessed, and the sum due in equity was found by the clerk. From this assessment the defendant appealed to the chancellor. The assessment was sustained and a decree made accordingly. The defendant seasonably filed his motion for an appeal, but the chancellor did not grant permission therefor. The plaintiff files a motion to dismiss this attempted appeal.

Chancery appeals are a matter of statute, and it is only by force of the statute that such an appeal can be had. Gove v. Gove’s Adm’r, 87 Vt. 468, 89 Atl. 868. By the express terms of P. S. 1307, an appeal from a decree of foreclosure can only be had by permission of the court. And this is an appeal or at^ tempted appeal from a decree of foreclosure, though the only controversy is over the sum due in equity. But this fact does not change the character of the decree. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the plain and positive terms of the statute. The case is not here, but remains in the court of chancery. Abbott v. Sanders, 83 Vt. 165, 74 Atl. 1058; Tudor v. Kennett, 88 Vt. 291, 92 Atl. 213.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A. 633, 91 Vt. 172, 1917 Vt. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludlow-savings-bank-trust-co-v-knight-vt-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack