Popkin v. Bumstead

8 Mass. 491
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1812
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 8 Mass. 491 (Popkin v. Bumstead) 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
Popkin v. Bumstead, 8 Mass. 491 (Mass. 1812).

Opinion

By the Court.

It has been contended for the demandant, upon the facts exhibited by the pleadings in this case, that her title to dower has revived, and is as if she had never released it in the deed of mortgage. It would be singular, if when the tenant had paid the money due on the mortgage, and supposed that he had thus perfected his estate, by extinguishing the only encumbrance he knew to exist upon it, he should by that act revive the claim of the demandant, which she had before solemnly renounced under her hand and seal, and which, as he was under no obligation, it cannot be presumed he meant to do.

But the facts produce no such absurdity. When the tenant purchased the equity of redemption, it belonged to him to pay the money due on the mortgage, and thus rid his estate of that encumbrance. Having all the equitable interest in himself, when he had paid the money due by the mortgage, the legal estate followed the equitable interest, and he became seised of the whole fee simple. If this were not the plain, legal operation of the transaction, the law would * construe the discharge of the mortgage by the mortgagee a release of the legal estate by him to the tenant, who had become lawfully possessed of the equitable interest, and from whom the consideration for that discharge flowed, rather than such a mischief should follow.

Replication adjudged bad.

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

Related

Virgin v. Virgin
91 Ill. App. 188 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Everson v. . McMullen
21 N.E. 52 (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)
Hurley v. Hurley
2 L.R.A. 172 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Rooker v. Benson
83 Ind. 250 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
McMahon v. Russell
17 Fla. 698 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1880)
Burson v. Dow & Fowler
65 Ill. 146 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1872)
Strong v. Converse
90 Mass. 557 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1864)
Chiswell v. Morris
14 N.J. Eq. 101 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1861)
Pritts v. Ritchey
29 Pa. 71 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1857)
Carter v. Goodin
3 Ohio St. (N.S.) 75 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1853)
Runyan v. Stewart
12 Barb. 537 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Whitehead v. Cummins
2 Ind. 58 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1850)
Taylor v. Fowler
18 Ohio St. 567 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1849)
Wilkins v. French
20 Me. 111 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1841)
Van Dyne v. Thayre
19 Wend. 162 (New York Supreme Court, 1838)
Woodhull v. Reid
16 N.J.L. 128 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1837)
Eaton v. Simonds
31 Mass. 98 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1833)
Gibson v. Crehore
20 Mass. 475 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1826)
Norton v. Soule
2 Me. 341 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1823)
Snow v. Stevens
15 Mass. 277 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1818)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Mass. 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popkin-v-bumstead-mass-1812.