Deavitt v. Ring

• Decision Date: 10 February 1904
• Parties: DEAVITT v. RING et al.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

56 A. 978

76 Vt. 216

DEAVITT

v. RING et al.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Feb. 10, 1904.

Appeal in Chancery, Washington County; Stafford, Chancellor.

Bill by Edward H. Deavitt against Walter L. Ring, as administrator of the estate of Jane Ring, deceased, and others. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

For former opinion, see 52 Atl. 1045.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUXSON, START, WATSON, STAFFORD, and HASELTON, JJ.

Edward H. Deavitt, in pro. per. J. H. Macomber, for appellees.

START, J. When this case was before this court, as reported in 74 Vt 431, 52 Atl. 1045, it was held on the facts as there reported that the grantee of that undivided half of the premises which has become chargeable with the payment of a mortgage covering the whole premises, as shown by the record in the town clerk's office, is not entitled to subrogation to the rights of the mortgagee upon redemption of the mortgage by his grantor with funds furnished by him. The material facts since brought upon the record by way of supplemental bill, which is demurred to, are to the effect that the orator believed that a redemption by his grantor, Elizabeth Ring, after the time of redemption allowed to the administrator of Jane Ring's estate had expired, would inure solely to the benefit of Elizabeth Ring and her grantees; that, after consulting two solicitors, whose opinion was the same as his own, he purchased in reliance upon such opinion and belief; that the estate of Jane Ring was not a party to the transaction between himself and Elizabeth Ring, in which the mistake occurred; that Jane Ring's estate has been in no way prejudiced by his mistake; and that he disclaims any interest in the premises, except the mortgage interest of the original mortgagee. The orator asks for a decree that will, in effect, compel the heirs of Jane Ring to restore to him the money he paid to Elizabeth Ring in consideration of a conveyance by her of the premises in question, or forfeit to him their estate in one undivided half of the premises which they are entitled to hold as against Elizabeth Ring and her grantees, free and clear of the mortgage incumbrance. This he is not entitled to. He did not redeem the premises. He purchased of Elizabeth Ring believing that he was acquiring title to the whole premises, when in fact his grantor owned only one undivided half of the premises; and this, as between his grantor and the heirs of Jane Ring, was chargeable with the mortgage then resting upon the entire premises. He paid the purchase price, and the same was used by his grantor in payment of the mortgage indebtedness, which had so far become an indebtedness of hers that in paying it, as between herself and the heirs of Jane Ring, she was paying her own debt The belief under which the orator took the conveyance and paid therefor was not due to an absence of the means of knowing all the facts respecting his grantor's title, as was held when the case was before us upon the master's report As the case now...