Rose v. Fall River Five Cents Savings Bank

43 N.E. 93, 165 Mass. 273, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 239
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 26, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 43 N.E. 93 (Rose v. Fall River Five Cents Savings Bank) 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
Rose v. Fall River Five Cents Savings Bank, 43 N.E. 93, 165 Mass. 273, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 239 (Mass. 1896).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

This is a bill to set aside a foreclosure sale under a power in a mortgage, and to redeem. The ground on which the sale is alleged to be void is that notice of it was not printed in a “ newspaper, if there is any, published in the city or town wherein the mortgaged premises are situated,” as required by Pub. Sts. c. 181, § 17. The premises are in the town of Dighton. The publication was in the Fall River News. The question is whether there was any newspaper published in Dighton. The paper relied on by the plaintiff was one called the Dighton Rock. It appeared that newspapers all having the same contents, but having different headings and date lines according to the fifteen different towns of their destination, were printed in Fall River, entered at the post office there as second class mail matter, and sent out thence to the different towns. In Fall River the sheet was called the Fall River Advertiser; in other places respectively, the Somerset Times, Freetown Journal, Swansey Record, etc. The Dighton Rock was mailed from Fall River to its thirty regular subscribers, and two or three times as many copies were sent by express to Dighton for sale and distribution. The only fact looking like a domicil in Dighton was that the so called local agent there had over his office door a sign, “ Office of the Dighton Rock, Book and Job Printing.” But the publishers of the paper paid no office expenses there, and the agent got his pay in commissions upon sales and orders for printing.

We are of opinion that the Dighton Rock was not published in Dighton, and that the foreclosure was valid. Assuming that papers printed from the same type, with or without different names, might be published in different towns within the meaning of the statute, in this instance all the fifteen heads of the hydra had their home in Fall River. The word “ published ” is used in the statute not quite in the same sense in which it [275]*275might be used in libel, but refers to the home office of the paper. There was but one place of management, and the paper was given to the world from there, not only under its other names, but as the Dighton Rock so far as it had regular subscribers. If the views of the parties can be gathered from their stipulations, it is to be observed that the mortgage required publication in a newspaper printed in Fall River.

A rather faint attempt was made to support the bill upon the different ground that the defendant Monroe orally promised the plaintiff that if she wished he would sell the premises back to her for what they cost him, and that she thereupon saw the bank officers for the purpose of enabling him to get them as cheaply as possible.

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

Related

COURIER-POST v. County of Camden
995 A.2d 306 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2010)
Beaufort v. Warwick Credit Union
437 A.2d 1375 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1981)
City of Plainfield v. Courier News
369 A.2d 513 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1976)
Gladstone v. Treasurer & Receiver General
147 N.E.2d 786 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Loos v. City of New York
257 A.D. 219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)
Ellis v. Lyford
169 N.E. 800 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Downing v. Brennan
122 N.E. 729 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Brown v. Learmouth
117 N.E. 829 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Corbett v. Gallagher
114 N.E. 751 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Carter v. Exchange Trust Co.
108 N.E. 359 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Hoffmeyer v. Reed
128 P. 383 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Conners v. City of Lowell
95 N.E. 412 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Tourtillotte v. Tourtillotte
91 N.E. 909 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
State v. Bass
54 A. 1113 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1903)
Brown v. Wentworth
62 N.E. 984 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Estate of Snook
5 Coffey 245 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 N.E. 93, 165 Mass. 273, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-fall-river-five-cents-savings-bank-mass-1896.