Rocks v. Cornell

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Rocks v. Cornell

45 A. 552, 21 R.I. 532, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 17

DecidedJanuary 31, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A. 552 (Rocks v. Cornell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rocks v. Cornell, 45 A. 552, 21 R.I. 532, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 17 (R.I. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The testimony shows that the complainant at the time of executing the mortgage was an infant, and so incapable of appointing an attorney. The power of sale in the mortgage therefore, so far as relates to her interest in the land, was invalid, and the sale under it absolutely void as to her. Note to Tucker v. Moreland; Vasse v. Smith, 1 Am. Leading Cases, 5 ed. **247, 248. Tyler on Infancy, 46, 47; Schouler Dom. Rel. § 406, and cases cited. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2 ed. 940, 941. It follows that though she has ratified the mortgage, she would, nevertheless, be entitled to redeem if the allegations of the bill sufficiently set forth the invalidity of the power of sale as a ground for relief.

Our opinion is that the bill is defective in this respect, and needs amendment before relief can be granted.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) The testimony shows that the complainant at the time of executing the mortgage was an infant, and so incapable of appointing an attorney. The power of sale in the mortgage therefore, so far as relates to her interest in the land, was invalid, and the sale under it absolutely void as to her. Note to Tucker v. Moreland; Vasse v. Smith, 1 Am. Leading Cases, 5 ed. **247, 248. Tyler on Infancy, 46, 47; Schouler Dom. Rel. § 406, and cases cited. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2 ed. 940, 941. It follows that though she has ratified the mortgage, she would, nevertheless, be entitled to redeem if the allegations of the bill sufficiently set forth the invalidity of the power of sale as a ground for relief.

Our opinion is that the bill is defective in this respect, and needs amendment before relief can be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A. 552, 21 R.I. 532, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocks-v-cornell-ri-1900.