Skinner v. Smith

1 Day 124
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJuly 1, 1803
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1 Day 124 (Skinner v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Skinner v. Smith, 1 Day 124 (Colo. 1803).

Opinion

By the Court.

Although it cannot be admitted as a rule, that a mortgagor shall have fifteen years to redeem, for that special circumstances may limit his equity to a shorter period ; yet it may be adopted as a rule, that the mortgagee being in possession, a mortgagor shall not have more than fifteen years to redeem, after his equitable right has aeciued, unless the delay shall be accounted for, by statute disabilities, or other special cir[128]*128cumstances, that may be considered equivalent. For, a mortgagee, who has paid a valuable consideration, and acquired a possession by law, should not be in a worse condition than a disseizor. In this case, no such disabilities, or special circumstances, exist; and the mortgagee, and those holding under him, have had the possession a much longer period than, fifteen years.

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

Related

Arnold v. Hollister
37 A.2d 695 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1944)
McVickar v. Filer
31 Mich. 304 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1875)
Brock v. Savage
31 Pa. 410 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Whitney v. French
25 Vt. 663 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1853)
Jarvis v. Woodruff
22 Conn. 548 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1852)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Day 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-smith-conn-1803.