Balch v. Chaffee
| Decision Date | 01 November 1900 |
| Citation | 47 A. 327,73 Conn. 318 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BALCH v. CHAFFEE et al. |
Appeal from court of common pleas, Hartford county; William S. Case, Judge.
Suit of foreclosure by Lucy Balch against Edwin W. Chaffee and others. From a decree adjudging a mechanic's lien to be prior to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
These facts appeared from the finding: The condition of the first mortgage recited a note of the grantor in favor of the grantee for $150, adding: "And whereas, I may become further indebted to the said grantee as evidenced by other promissory notes hereafter given, now, therefore, if said note or notes shall be well and truly paid according to its or their tenor, then this deed shall be void." When the deed was given, the grantee orally promised to lend the mortgagor, later, $150 more. A few weeks later she lent him on different days $450, believing such loan to be secured by the mortgage. Within a year she lent him $200 more, and thereupon took his note for all the sums thus lent after the first mortgage, and a new mortgage to secure it. A month before this last loan, and several months after the loans amounting to $450, King furnished materials and rendered services, under a contract with the mortgagor, in the construction of an artesian well on the mortgaged premises. It was sunk close to the back door of the house, for the exclusive use of its occupants for domestic purposes, and was the only source of water supply on the premises or within a quarter of a mile of them. It was not physically connected with the house. The proper steps were taken by King to obtain a mechanic's lien for his materials and services. The premises were worth less than the amount of the second mortgage. The mortgagee did not know of King's employment until the well had been constructed, and he had no knowledge of any transaction between her and the mortgagor other than as appeared by the first mortgage.
James E. Cooper and John H. Kirkham, for appellant.
Sidney E. Clarke, for appellee Harvey B. King.
The court of common pleas correctly held that, as against the defendant King, the second mortgage was ineffectual, and the first secured nothing but the money which had been lent before its execution. As against subsequent incumbrancers, who may take title without other notice than that given by the land records, future advances cannot be secured by a mortgage deed which does not show any agreement to make them, nor name the amount to which they may be made. No duty of inquiry, in such case, rests upon one who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Courchesne
...be favored unless the terms of the statute absolutely forbid. Sutherland on Statutory Construction [Ed. 1891] § 323; Balch v. Chaffee, 73 Conn. 318, 320, 47 Atl. 327 [1900]. `A statute should be construed, having in view the nature and reason of the remedy and the object of the statute, in ......
-
Amsel v. Brooks
...129 Conn. 642, 645, 30 A.2d 547; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Town of Southbury, 95 Conn. 242, 247, 111 A. 363; Balch v. Chaffee, 73 Conn. 318, 320, 47 A. 327. It is to be presumed that legislatures do not deliberately enact ineffective and unconstitutional laws. Antman v. Connecticut L......
-
Society for Sav. v. Chestnut Estates, Inc.
...Commission, 129 Conn. 642, 645, 30 A.2d 547; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Southbury, 95 Conn. 242, 247, 111 A. 363; Balch v. Chaffee, 73 Conn. 318, 320, 47 A. 327. It is to be presumed that legislatures do not deliberately enact ineffective and unconstitutional laws. Antman v. Connectic......
-
Thompson and Peck, Inc. v. Division Drywall, Inc.
... ... 461, 473 (1862); Rose v. Persse & Brooks Paper Works, 29 Conn. 256, 267-68 (1860); [were] all unlienable. Balch v. Chaffee, 73 Conn. 318, 321, 47 A. 327 (1900), did hold lienable as an appurtenance the construction of an artesian well not physically connected ... ...