Caverly v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 04 March 1882 |
| Citation | 132 Mass. 462 |
| Parties | Robert B. Caverly, administrator, v. Benjamin F. Simpson |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Middlesex. Bill in equity, filed April 5, 1881, by the administrator with the will annexed of Daniel Eastman, Sen alleging that two parcels of land in Lowell belonging to Daniel Eastman, Jun. were mortgaged to the defendant by five successive mortgages, which were yet undischarged upon the records, and were clouds upon the title; that by deed dated June 19, 1877, Eastman, Jun. gave to the defendant a quitclaim deed of these parcels of land, the consideration of which was the giving up and cancelling of the mortgages; that on June 20, 1877, the defendant gave to Eastman, Sen. a bond in the penal sum of $ 6000 conditioned as follows:
"The condition of this obligation is such, that, whereas Daniel Eastman of Chelmsford has sold and conveyed by deed of quitclaim, dated June 19, 1877, duly executed and recorded with Middlesex North District Deeds on the twentieth day of June, 1877, to said Simpson, two certain lots of land with the appurtenances situated in said Lowell, to wit: one lot on the southerly side of Paige Street, and one lot on the northerly side of Merrimac Street, reference to which deed is made for particular description of said premises; and whereas said Simpson intends to make betterments and improvements on said premises; and whereas it is agreed by and between said Simpson and said Daniel Eastman, Senior, that he the said Simpson will sell and convey to said Daniel Eastman, Senior by deed of quitclaim, said premises, whenever, at any time within five years from date hereof, he shall pay to said Simpson the sum of five thousand dollars, together with all further sums said Simpson shall pay to remove any legal incumbrances on said premises, and together with all further sums said Simpson shall expend from and after date hereof in making betterments and improvements on said premises, and also shall pay interest on said sum of five thousand dollars from date hereof, and on all sums paid and expended in removing incumbrances, and in betterments and improvements from the several dates of such payments for incumbrances, betterments and improvements, at eight per cent per annum, to be reckoned semiannually."
The bill further alleged that, at the date of the deed and bond Eastman, Jun. was largely indebted to Eastman, Sen.; and that this bond was given by the defendant to Eastman, Sen. on account of some equitable consideration moving from Eastman, Jun. to Eastman, Sen., but what it was the plaintiff was ignorant, as both were dead; that one Howe, of Lowell, had been appointed administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Eastman, Jun., and, as the plaintiff was informed and believed, made no claim to have any equitable rights in the bond; that the plaintiff had been licensed by the Probate Court to sell his testator's real estate for the payment of debts, and it was necessary for the plaintiff to redeem the lots of land in question, and to recover and sell his testator's interest or equitable rights therein; that the obtaining of the quitclaim deed by the defendant of Eastman, Jun., in consideration that the five mortgages were to be cancelled, and the giving of the bond to Eastman, Sen., which were executed in one and the same transaction, ought in their effect and construction to be regarded as a mortgage to Eastman, Sen.; that the plaintiff, since his appointment as administrator, had been willing, and was willing, to comply with the conditions of the bond, and to pay the defendant whatever might be justly and equitable due thereon; and on December 16, 1879, made a demand on the defendant for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastman v. Simpson
...want them, they should have sued at law. See Milkman v. Ordway, 106 Mass. 232. 2. The condition of the bond is set forth in Caverly v. Simpson, 132 Mass. 462. The master reported that a sufficient tender was made December 16, 1879, and charged the defendant with rents and profits from that ......
-
Caverly v. Eastman
...is the rights which Daniel Eastman died possessed of in the real property under the bond he held. This bond is described in Caverly v. Simpson, 132 Mass. 462, and it was agreed that the condition as therein printed was correct. The bill in equity there reported was dismissed March 2, 1882. ......
-
Caverly v. Eastman
...is the rights which Daniel Eastman died possessed of in the real property under the bond he held. This bond is described in Caverly v. Simpson, 132 Mass. 462, it was agreed that the condition as therein printed was correct. The bill in equity there reported was dismissed March 2, 1882. Subs......
-
Eastman v. Simpson
...have sued at law. See Milkman v. Ordway, 106 Mass. 232. 2. The condition of the bond executed by the defendant is set forth in Caverly v. Simpson, 132 Mass. 462. master reported that a sufficient tender was made on December 16, 1879, and charged the defendant with rents and profits from tha......