Saghbazarian v. Cohen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Saghbazarian v. Cohen

175 N.E. 634, 275 Mass. 249, 1931 Mass. LEXIS 1379

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 2, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 N.E. 634 (Saghbazarian v. Cohen) 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

Saghbazarian v. Cohen, 175 N.E. 634, 275 Mass. 249, 1931 Mass. LEXIS 1379 (Mass. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bugg, C.J.

This suit in equity is brought to restrain the foreclosure of a construction mortgage. The case was sent to a master. The plaintiff’s exceptions to his report were overruled and the report was confirmed, and a final decree was entered dismissing the bill. The mortgage and note thereby secured were to run for a term of four months from August 21, 1929. The underlying controversy between the parties was whether the defendant had granted for consideration an extension of time for the payment of the amount due under the mortgage. As bearing upon that point, the plaintiff offered in evidence a receipt dated February 3, 1930, acknowledging the payment of $92.50 in way of interest “till Feb. 21, 1930 — one month.” The master found that this receipt and acceptance of interest after the date of the maturity of the note were not an extension of the note under the terms of the agreement. The evidence is not reported and hence the findings of fact of the master must be accepted as true.

[251]*251It is established that ordinarily a receipt is open to explanation and that its written terms are not conclusive upon the parties. There are no findings which require the conclusion that this receipt in the circumstances disclosed was an agreement to extend the mortgage and the note thereby secured.

Interlocutory decree affirmed and final decree affirmed with costs.

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

Bugg, C.J.

This suit in equity is brought to restrain the foreclosure of a construction mortgage. The case was sent to a master. The plaintiff’s exceptions to his report were overruled and the report was confirmed, and a final decree was entered dismissing the bill. The mortgage and note thereby secured were to run for a term of four months from August 21, 1929. The underlying controversy between the parties was whether the defendant had granted for consideration an extension of time for the payment of the amount due under the mortgage. As bearing upon that point, the plaintiff offered in evidence a receipt dated February 3, 1930, acknowledging the payment of $92.50 in way of interest “till Feb. 21, 1930 — one month.” The master found that this receipt and acceptance of interest after the date of the maturity of the note were not an extension of the note under the terms of the agreement. The evidence is not reported and hence the findings of fact of the master must be accepted as true.

[251]*251It is established that ordinarily a receipt is open to explanation and that its written terms are not conclusive upon the parties. There are no findings which require the conclusion that this receipt in the circumstances disclosed was an agreement to extend the mortgage and the note thereby secured.

Interlocutory decree affirmed and final decree affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 N.E. 634, 275 Mass. 249, 1931 Mass. LEXIS 1379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saghbazarian-v-cohen-mass-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack