Tomlinson v. Monmouth Mutual Fire Insurance

47 Me. 232
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 Me. 232 (Tomlinson v. Monmouth Mutual Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tomlinson v. Monmouth Mutual Fire Insurance, 47 Me. 232 (Me. 1859).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Appleton, J.

It is enacted by R. S., 1840, c. 125, § 1, that an absolute conveyance, “with a separate instrument of defeasance of the same date and executed at the same time, shall constitute a mortgage.”

It is further enacted, c. 91, § 21, that a deed “purporting to convey an absolute estate of any kind in lands, which is intended to be defeasible by bond or any other instrument of defeasance, shall not be defeated by means of such bond or other instrument against any other than the maker of such defeasance, his heirs or devisors, unless the instrument of de[237]*237feasance shall have been duly recorded in the registry of deeds in which the deed referred to in the bond or defeasance shall have been recorded.”

The deed of the plaintiff to Averill constitutes an alienation of the premises insured. The defeasance executed at the. same time was not recorded. By the express words of the statute, the deed is not to be defeated unless the instrument of defeasance is recorded. The title to the land remained in Averill of record, and he might convey a good title, or it might be attached as his property. The plaintiff, by neglecting to record Averill’s bond, put it out of the power of the defendants to perfect their lien by recording the same. The registry of deed shows an alienation0of record, and the statute provides that it shall not be defeated by reason of any unrecorded bond or other instrument of defeasance. The policy, thus, by its terms, becomes absolutely void,” as between these parties.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

Tenney, O. J., and Rice, Cutting, May, and Goodenow, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Belatti v. Western Grain Dealers Mut. Fire Ins.
236 N.W. 367 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1931)
Bank of Glasco v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
49 P. 329 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Me. 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomlinson-v-monmouth-mutual-fire-insurance-me-1859.