Watkins v. Hill

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Watkins v. Hill

25 Mass. 523

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Mass. 523 (Watkins v. Hill) 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

Watkins v. Hill, 25 Mass. 523 (Mass. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. Whatever effect, if any, the exchange of the notes might have had as against a subsequent purchaser of the land mortgaged,

I it is very clear, that as against Howard, the mortgager, it could not operate as a payment of the debt secured by the mortgage. It was not so intended, as appears by the declarations of Howard, in respect to the transaction; and then, leaving the mortgage uncancelled is of itself sufficient evidence against him, unless he could show, by evidence, an intentional payment of the note described in the mortgage.¹ Now the administrator who defends the suit, cannot set up a defence, except fraud, which the mortgager himself could not do. The transaction was a very natural one, as represented by Howard himself, and there is nothing in it which either legally or equitably destroys the security of the demandant in the mortgage.

Motion to take off the default overruled.

See Pomroy v. Rice, 16 Pick. 24.

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

Parker C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. Whatever effect, if any, the exchange of the notes might have had as against a subsequent purchaser of the land mortgaged,

I it is very clear, that as against Howard, the mortgager, it could not operate as a payment of the debt secured by the mortgage. It was not so intended, as appears by the declarations of Howard, in respect to the transaction; and then, leaving the mortgage uncancelled is of itself sufficient evidence against him, unless he could show, by evidence, an intentional payment of the note described in the mortgage.¹ Now the administrator who defends the suit, cannot set up a defence, except fraud, which the mortgager himself could not do. The transaction was a very natural one, as represented by Howard himself, and there is nothing in it which either legally or equitably destroys the security of the demandant in the mortgage.

Motion to take off the default overruled.

See Pomroy v. Rice, 16 Pick. 24.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Mass. 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-hill-mass-1829.