Taylor v. Dean

89 Mass. 251
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1863
StatusPublished

This text of 89 Mass. 251 (Taylor v. Dean) 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
Taylor v. Dean, 89 Mass. 251 (Mass. 1863).

Opinion

Chapman, J.

The defendant Fanny Dean had made a mortgage to the defendant Margaret S. Dean, and the plaintiff, having recovered judgment against Fanny, caused the equity of redemption to be sold on his execution, and became the purchaser. He seeks as such purchaser to have the sale declared null and void, because he says the mortgage was fraudulent against creditors, and was without good consideration.

But a creditor who becomes the purchaser of the equity has no right to contest the validity of the mortgage on this ground. Russell v. Dudley, 3 Met. 147. Gerrish v. Mace, 9 Gray, 235. And if the mortgage .is to stand as to him, the equity of redemption is no less valuable because the mortgage is fraudulent. He gets what he purchased; and he voluntarily offered at Tie auction the price which he paid for it.

[253]*253But he farther says that Fanny fraudulently gave to Margaret a certificate upon the mortgage that she had given to her possession of said mortgaged property ; that the certificate was properly recorded on the same day, and that three years have since elapsed, so that the mortgage is foreclosed. On the alleged ground that this transaction was fraudulent, and did not come to the knowledge of the plaintiff till after the lapse of three years, he seeks to have the foreclosure set aside, and to be let in to redeem the mortgage, if he cannot avoid it. But these acts cannot possibly be fraudulent. The mortgagor had a right to give the certificate and the mortgagee to take it, without giving notice to him. The statute makes the registry of the certificate constructive notice to him, and the duty of examining the records to see whether any such certificate is there is upon him. He has lost his right by neglecting to attend to it.

Demurrer sustained. Bill dismissed, with costs.

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

Related

Maraman v. Trunnell
60 Ky. 146 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 Mass. 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-dean-mass-1863.