Crooker v. Holmes

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
Writing for the CourtAPPLETON, C. J.
Citation65 Me. 195
Decision Date08 October 1875
PartiesCYRENIOUS W. CROOKER, in equity, v. EBENEZER R. HOLMES.

65 Me. 195

CYRENIOUS W. CROOKER, in equity,
v.

EBENEZER R. HOLMES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

October 8, 1875


1875.

BILL IN EQUITY inserted in a writ of attachment, dated February 23, 1874, brought to redeem certain described premises from the incumbrances thereon mentioned in the opinion. [65 Me. 196]

They were formerly occupied as the homestead farm of Seth Crooker to whom one portion was conveyed by Albion K. P. Elwell, March 27, 1860, and the other portion was conveyed to said Seth Crooker by Thomas J. Thurston, June 18, 1860. Upon the last day of March, 1870, Seth Crooker mortgaged the whole farm to Joseph McDonald to secure payment of a note of a hundred and fifty dollars in one year. This mortgage, with the note it secured, was transferred to the defendant October 2, 1872, and on the fourth day of that month Mr. Holmes proceeded to obtain a foreclosure of it by publication. November 7, 1870, Seth Crooker mortgaged to Cyrenious W. Crooker so much of the farm as was conveyed to him by A. K. P. Elwell to secure the note for two hundred dollars which is copied in the opinion.

Subsequently to these conveyances Eben C. Andrews sued Seth Crooker, attached all his interest in real estate in Oxford county, and July 6, 1871, caused to be sold upon his execution by the officer holding the same, all said Seth Crooker's interest in said farm and right of redeeming the same to Seth T. Holbrook, who conveyed the same to Ebenezer R. Holmes by deed dated September 2, 1872. The complainant further stated that being desirous of redeeming the premises from the first mortgage, " on the twenty-second day of October, 1873, to wit, on the tenth day of February, 1874, he made written demand for a true account of the sum due on said prior mortgage, and of the rents and profits," & c., & c., but that none was ever furnished him. Wherefore he prayed for such account, and to be admitted to redeem. The respondent, in his answer, admitted the existence of deeds and transfers similar to, but not identical with, those mentioned in the bill, but said the deed from Seth Crooker to the complainant was fraudulent and void; and set up a former indebtedness by note from both the Crookers to him which he exchanged for the single note of Seth Crooker, and claimed to have it allowed him.

The respondent also alleged that upon the twenty-seventh of March, 1871, Seth Crooker mortgaged the premises ostensibly for $350, to Austin Partridge, who afterwards transferred said mortgage for value to the respondent; but the respondent believed this mortgage also was fraudulent as to the creditors of Seth [65 Me. 197] Crooker and intended to defraud them. He denied that any legal demand for an account was ever made upon him.

The demand was in writing, signed by the complainant's solicitor, and by him (Mr. Black) left at the respondent's dwelling house February 10, 1874.

The complainant, being examined by the respondent, testified that the note and mortgage to him were for money he sent to his father, Seth Crooker, now deceased, while the complainant was in the army. Seth Crooker died without having made any sale or conveyance in fee of the farm.

A. Black, for the plaintiff.

A. A. Strout & G. F. Holmes, for the defendant.

In order to be entitled to redeem the complainant must have a valid subsisting title. His title was never valid, but was void because fraudulent. It was also subject to a contingency which can never happen. His right to the two hundred dollars which the mortgage purports to secure can now never vest in him. Bigelow v. Willson, 1 Pick. 485.

The demand for an account should have been given in hand. Roby v. Skinner, 34 Me. 270. Farwell v. Sturdivant, 37 Me. 308.

APPLETON, C. J.

This is a bill in equity to redeem a mortgage.

It appears that, on March 31, 1870, Seth Crooker mortgaged his homestead farm, consisting of two parcels of land purchased of different grantors, to Joseph McDonald to secure the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, payable in one year. October 2, 1872, McDonald assigned his note...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 practice notes
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...63, 18 N. E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139;Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 307;Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388, 42 S. E. 722; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 Am. Rep. 687; Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315, 37 Atl. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322;Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Webber ......
  • Caine v. Hagenbarth, 2094
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 6, 1910
    ...v. Schenck, 15 Utah 490; Alvord v. Cook, 174 Mass. 120; Page v. Cook, 164 Mass. 116; Eaton v. Yarborough, 19 Ga. 82; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195; Haines v. Weirick, 155 Ind. 548; Noland v. Bull, 33 P. 983 [Ore.]; Hicks v. Shouse, 17 B. Mon. 483. See also to the same effect: De Wolfe v. Fr......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1912
    ...63 (18 N.E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139); Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. 307; Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388 (42 S.E. 722); Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195 (20 Am. Rep. 687); Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315 (37 A. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322); Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433 (8 N.E. 346); Webber v.......
  • Public Market Co. v. City of Portland
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 9, 1943
    ...Sunnyside Land Co., 150 Cal. 214, 223, 88 P. 920; Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554; Gliddon v. McKinstry, 25 Ala. 246; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 Am. Rep. 687; Rumsey v. Livers, 112 Md. 546, 552, 77 Atl. 295; Linn v. Butler, 8 Colo. 355, 8 P. 588; Cape Fear & Deep River Navigation C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
63 cases
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...63, 18 N. E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139;Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 307;Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388, 42 S. E. 722; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 Am. Rep. 687; Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315, 37 Atl. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322;Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Webber ......
  • Caine v. Hagenbarth, 2094
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 6, 1910
    ...v. Schenck, 15 Utah 490; Alvord v. Cook, 174 Mass. 120; Page v. Cook, 164 Mass. 116; Eaton v. Yarborough, 19 Ga. 82; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195; Haines v. Weirick, 155 Ind. 548; Noland v. Bull, 33 P. 983 [Ore.]; Hicks v. Shouse, 17 B. Mon. 483. See also to the same effect: De Wolfe v. Fr......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1912
    ...63 (18 N.E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139); Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. 307; Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388 (42 S.E. 722); Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195 (20 Am. Rep. 687); Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315 (37 A. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322); Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433 (8 N.E. 346); Webber v.......
  • Public Market Co. v. City of Portland
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 9, 1943
    ...Sunnyside Land Co., 150 Cal. 214, 223, 88 P. 920; Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554; Gliddon v. McKinstry, 25 Ala. 246; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 Am. Rep. 687; Rumsey v. Livers, 112 Md. 546, 552, 77 Atl. 295; Linn v. Butler, 8 Colo. 355, 8 P. 588; Cape Fear & Deep River Navigation C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT