Smith v. Providence County Savings Bank

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Smith v. Providence County Savings Bank

30 A. 342, 18 R.I. 705, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 55

DecidedOctober 24, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A. 342 (Smith v. Providence County Savings Bank) 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

Smith v. Providence County Savings Bank, 30 A. 342, 18 R.I. 705, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 55 (R.I. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the allegations of the bill are not sufficient to raise the question argued to the court on the demurrer, viz., whether the complainant is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the Providence County Savings Bank, to the extent of the $500 advanced by him and paid to the bank in reduction of Donnelly’s indebtedness under the mortgages held by the bank.

The bill charges' no fraudulent collusion between McParlin and Grimes in the sale of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property, but only the complainant’s belief to that effect. A mere allegation of belief, unaccompanied by any averment as to the fact, is clearly insufficient.

The frame of the bill is not such as we should ordinarily expect to find in a bill for subrogation. It was apparently the idea of the pleader that allegations of fraud and collusion are necessary to maintain such a bill, though all that is necessary is to charge that the purchaser had notice of the complainant’s equity.

Demurrer sustained.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the allegations of the bill are not sufficient to raise the question argued to the court on the demurrer, viz., whether the complainant is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the Providence County Savings Bank, to the extent of the $500 advanced by him and paid to the bank in reduction of Donnelly’s indebtedness under the mortgages held by the bank.

The bill charges' no fraudulent collusion between McParlin and Grimes in the sale of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property, but only the complainant’s belief to that effect. A mere allegation of belief, unaccompanied by any averment as to the fact, is clearly insufficient.

The frame of the bill is not such as we should ordinarily expect to find in a bill for subrogation. It was apparently the idea of the pleader that allegations of fraud and collusion are necessary to maintain such a bill, though all that is necessary is to charge that the purchaser had notice of the complainant’s equity.

Demurrer sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A. 342, 18 R.I. 705, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-providence-county-savings-bank-ri-1894.