Mahagan v. Mead

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Mahagan v. Mead

63 N.H. 130

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJune 5, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 N.H. 130 (Mahagan v. Mead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mahagan v. Mead, 63 N.H. 130 (N.H. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

The Quimbys’ agreement in consideration of the loan to pay the defendants one half the proceeds of the land when sold, above the purchase-money, interest, and taxes, was not within the statute of frauds, and was valid. Graves v. Graves, 45 N. H. 823. The evidence to establish it was properdy received; it did not contradict or affect the contract shown by the note and mortgage. If the agreement was usurious, it was not void. G. L., c. 232, ss. 3 and 4. The release of the Quimbys from that agreement' was a valuable consideration for their conveyance of lot A to the defendants, and for ought that appears may have been equal in value to their interest in the lot. After that deed the defendants held an unincumbered title in fee to lot A, and their mortgage upon the remainder of the Yail tract for the full sum of $250. The plaintiffs claim under Mrs. Quimby by subsequent deeds, and take the portions of the tract conveyed to them subject to the mortgage.

The title to the plaintiffs’ lots passed from Mrs. Quimby long before the commencement of the defendants’ suit against her. The plaintiffs were neither parties nor privies to that suit, and are not affected by the judgment. For the same reason they are not bound by the award, and as they are not, neither are the defendants in this proceeding, however it might be as between them and Mrs. Quimby, but for the judgment. If the defendants and Mrs. Quimby had agreed upon the amount due upon the mortgage, it would not affect the plaintiffs; they might nevertheless show that, nothing was due upon it, and it would be as against them equally open to the defendants to prove that the whole was due. Such an agreement would be evidence against the defendants, but not conclusive. The result is, that $81 must be applied upon the mortgage note as of April 1, 1871, and that the remainder is due to the; defendants.

Case discharged.

.Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Carpenter, J.

The Quimbys’ agreement in consideration of the loan to pay the defendants one half the proceeds of the land when sold, above the purchase-money, interest, and taxes, was not within the statute of frauds, and was valid. Graves v. Graves, 45 N. H. 823. The evidence to establish it was properdy received; it did not contradict or affect the contract shown by the note and mortgage. If the agreement was usurious, it was not void. G. L., c. 232, ss. 3 and 4. The release of the Quimbys from that agreement' was a valuable consideration for their conveyance of lot A to the defendants, and for ought that appears may have been equal in value to their interest in the lot. After that deed the defendants held an unincumbered title in fee to lot A, and their mortgage upon the remainder of the Yail tract for the full sum of $250. The plaintiffs claim under Mrs. Quimby by subsequent deeds, and take the portions of the tract conveyed to them subject to the mortgage.

The title to the plaintiffs’ lots passed from Mrs. Quimby long before the commencement of the defendants’ suit against her. The plaintiffs were neither parties nor privies to that suit, and are not affected by the judgment. For the same reason they are not bound by the award, and as they are not, neither are the defendants in this proceeding, however it might be as between them and Mrs. Quimby, but for the judgment. If the defendants and Mrs. Quimby had agreed upon the amount due upon the mortgage, it would not affect the plaintiffs; they might nevertheless show that, nothing was due upon it, and it would be as against them equally open to the defendants to prove that the whole was due. Such an agreement would be evidence against the defendants, but not conclusive. The result is, that $81 must be applied upon the mortgage note as of April 1, 1871, and that the remainder is due to the; defendants.

Case discharged.

.Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.H. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahagan-v-mead-nh-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack