Winnerman v. Angell

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Winnerman v. Angell

58 A. 882, 26 R.I. 278, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 69

DecidedJune 27, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A. 882 (Winnerman v. Angell) 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

Winnerman v. Angell, 58 A. 882, 26 R.I. 278, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 69 (R.I. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

(1) Per Curiam.

The complainants, having in mind the purchase of a certain piece of land in the city of Providence, had the records examined and found three mortgages of said land on record, among them one made by a former owner to Margaret A. O’Reilly. On October 16, 1903, Margaret A. O’Reilly went to the ofñce of the register of deeds and discharged the mortgage upon the record. Thereupon, on October 18, 1903, the complainants completed the purchase and took a deed of the same, subject to the other two mortgages, and immediately *279 had their deed recorded. October 20, 1903, a transfer of the O’Reilly mortgage to the respondent, dated December 2,1901, was recorded, and the respondent proceeded to advertise the land for sale for breach of conditions of the mortgage.

Sheahan & O’Brien, for complainant. Wm. M. P. Bowen, for respondent.

The only question presented by the case is whether the complainants had actual knowledge of the transfer from Margaret A. O’Reilly to the respondent at the time they purchased. Gen. Laws cap. 202, § 2. The evidence entirely fails to prove such notice.

The recorded transfer is a cloud upon the complainants’ title which they are entitled to have removed, and the prayer of the bill for an injunction and cancellation of the transfer is granted.

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

(1) Per Curiam.

The complainants, having in mind the purchase of a certain piece of land in the city of Providence, had the records examined and found three mortgages of said land on record, among them one made by a former owner to Margaret A. O’Reilly. On October 16, 1903, Margaret A. O’Reilly went to the ofñce of the register of deeds and discharged the mortgage upon the record. Thereupon, on October 18, 1903, the complainants completed the purchase and took a deed of the same, subject to the other two mortgages, and immediately *279 had their deed recorded. October 20, 1903, a transfer of the O’Reilly mortgage to the respondent, dated December 2,1901, was recorded, and the respondent proceeded to advertise the land for sale for breach of conditions of the mortgage.

Sheahan & O’Brien, for complainant. Wm. M. P. Bowen, for respondent.

The only question presented by the case is whether the complainants had actual knowledge of the transfer from Margaret A. O’Reilly to the respondent at the time they purchased. Gen. Laws cap. 202, § 2. The evidence entirely fails to prove such notice.

The recorded transfer is a cloud upon the complainants’ title which they are entitled to have removed, and the prayer of the bill for an injunction and cancellation of the transfer is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A. 882, 26 R.I. 278, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winnerman-v-angell-ri-1904.