O'Connell v. Kelly

114 Mass. 97
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1873·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Wells, J.

The principle of estoppel does not apply between these parties. If it did, the evidence offered by the defendant was not in contradiction of his deed or of his affidavit. Neither [99]*99of those recites that the $1850 was received for the right to redeem from the first mortgage, or for the premises subject to the first mortgage. The plaintiff’s action is in affirmance of the proceedings of sale. The evidence offered and rejected was competent to show how much of the money received upon that sale ought in equity and good conscience to be paid over to the plaintiff, as having the right to redeem both mortgages. Abby v. Fuller, 8 Met. 36.

Exceptions sustained.

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

O'Connell v. Kelly, 114 Mass. 97 (Mass. 1873).

114 Mass. 97 (O'Connell v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC
7 So. 3d 318 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2008)
In Re Mellino
333 B.R. 578 (D. Massachusetts, 2005)
Albreast v. Heaton
160 So. 2d 470 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1964)
Davis v. Newburyport Five Cents Savings Bank
41 N.E.2d 188 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Dunbar v. Patrick
9 N.E.2d 308 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Royall
148 So. 399 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Brooks v. Bennett
177 N.E. 685 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Goldman v. Damon
172 N.E. 226 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Horr v. Herrington
1908 OK 226 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Donohue v. Chase
130 Mass. 137 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)
Skilton v. Roberts
129 Mass. 306 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Roche v. Hampden Savings Bank
128 Mass. 115 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Cook v. Basley
123 Mass. 396 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)