Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Emerson

115 Mass. 554, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 248
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 9, 1874·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

In order to maintain this action, the demandant must show a legal title. Adams v. Parker, 12 Gray, 53. And no such title is shown.

The mortgage made by Mrs. Harrington, her husband not assenting to or joining therein, was absolutely void. Gen. Sts. c. 108, § 3. Concord Bank v. Bellis, 10 Cush. 276. Lowell v. Daniels, 2 Gray, 161. Warner v. Crouch, 14 Allen, 163. In [558]*558Concord Bank v. Bellis, it was adjudged by this court, for reasons fully stated in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Shaw, that such a mortgage was not made valid by being executed and delivered at the same time as the deed by which the wife acquired the estate. The rule, thus declared twenty years ago, cannot be reversed by the court without the danger of unsettling titles which have been taken in reliance upon it.

The assignment from Hutchins to the demandant, containing no covenants of warranty, was of such title only as he then had under the mortgage, and did not estop him to set up any title afterwards acquired. Merritt v. Harris, 102 Mass. 326. The description of the premises, in his subsequent deed thereof, as subject to this mortgage, and the exception of the mortgage out of his covenants in that deed, were for the purpose of protecting him from liability upon his covenants, and can have no effect to charge his grantee in this action. Judgment on the award for the tenant.

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

Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Emerson, 115 Mass. 554, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 248 (Mass. 1874).

115 Mass. 554 (Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Emerson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Solomon
40 F. Supp. 62 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1941)
Stewart v. Omaha Loan & Trust Co.
222 S.W. 808 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Byrnes v. Payne
173 P. 1091 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
McDonald v. Finseth
155 N.W. 863 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Federal Trust Co. v. Bristol County Street Railway Co.
105 N.E. 1064 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Wing v. Deans
102 N.E. 313 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Capitol National Bank v. Holmes
43 Colo. 154 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1908)
Boyer v. Price
88 P. 1106 (Washington Supreme Court, 1907)
Stough v. Badger Lumber Co.
79 P. 737 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)
Livingstone v. Murphy
72 N.E. 1012 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Wendall v. Fisher
72 N.E. 322 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Whitman
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 9 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1899)
Burbank v. Roots
4 Colo. App. 197 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1894)
Claflin v. Boston & Albany Railroad
32 N.E. 659 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Brooks v. Owen
19 S.W. 723 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Bennett v. Keehn
15 N.W. 776 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1883)
Board of Supervisors of Manitowoc County v. Sullivan
8 N.W. 12 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1881)
Freison v. President of Bates College
128 Mass. 464 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Bellis v. Bellis
122 Mass. 414 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)