Briggs v. Rice
| Decision Date | 14 December 1880 |
| Citation | 130 Mass. 50 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ann E. Briggs v. F. H. Rice & another |
Suffolk.
Decree for the plaintiff.
C Wheeler, for the plaintiff.
A Eastman, for Gooding.
OPINION
The plaintiff transferred and delivered a note and mortgage for $ 1500 to the defendant Rice, to hold as collateral security for the payment of $ 300 borrowed by the plaintiff of him. The assignment of the mortgage to Rice was absolute in form and recited tat the consideration for the same was $ 300. Before the mortgage note became due, Rice transferred it to the defendant Gooding, as security for $ 1200 borrowed of the latter by Rice, and at the same time assigned the mortgage to him. The plaintiff now brings this bill in equity to redeem these securities from Gooding by paying the amount she borrowed of Rice. But Gooding has the right to hold both note and mortgage as security for his claim against Rice, unless it is shown that he is not a holder in good faith without notice.
The plaintiff, to charge Gooding with notice, relies solely on the fact that an inadequate consideration of $ 300 is recited in the assignment of the mortgage from her to Rice. She contends that this alone is sufficient to indicate that Rice did not take the note for its full value, and to put Gooding on his inquiry; and that, by reason of the constructive notice thus afforded, he is subject to all the equities existing between her and Rice.
It is not easy to state by rule what constitutes in equity implied or constructive notice, because it depends in most cases upon a great variety of circumstances having a tendency to excite suspicion, or showing fraudulent purpose. The general rule is, that whatever puts a party upon inquiry amounts to notice, provided the inquiry as in the case of a purchaser is a duty, and would lead to a knowledge of the fact. It is left to be decided in each case what is sufficient to put a party on inquiry. In the present case, the fact relied on is clearly not sufficient. The defendant became holder of this note for a valuable consideration before its maturity. He had no actual notice of any equities which would defeat his right to recover an amount sufficient to secure the payment of the debt for which it was pledged. As owner of the mortgage note he was in fact entitled in equity, without any assignment, to claim the benefit of the mortgage security. The mortgage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Moffitt
...as would put a reasonably prudent and cautious person upon their inquiry if he is acting in good faith. Roan v. Winn, 93 Mo. 511; Briggs v. Rice, 130 Mass. 50; v. Jacobs, 3 McCrary (U.S.) 638; Lowry v. Brown, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 456. (4) The court tried the case upon the theory that the tenant......
-
Wasserman v. Metzger
...that the title is in some way defective, or some fraudulent or willful blindness, as distinguished from mere want of caution." Briggs v. Rice, 130 Mass. 50; Grunders v. Reid, 107 Ill. 304; Woodward v. Paige, 5 Ohio St. 70. The reasoning of the learned judge below in his written opinion, and......
-
Hersey v. Lambert
... ... Wilson v. McCullough, 23 Pa. 440; Churcher v ... Guernsey, 39 Pa. 84; Maul v. Rider, 59 Pa. 167; ... Pittman v. Sofley, 64 Ill. 155; Briggs v ... Rice, 130 Mass. 50; Condit v. Wilson, 36 N.J.Eq. 371 ... The ... question is not whether the purchaser had the means of ... ...
-
Whitney v. Metallic Window Screen Mfg. Co.
...redeem, and they cannot be said to have had notice from the records of an unknown equity which was not disclosed on the records. Briggs v. Rice, 130 Mass. 50. final decree of the superior court must be affirmed; the 60 days within which the plaintiffs may redeem to be reckoned from the day ......