Downing v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 08 February 1894 |
| Citation | 29 A. 130,64 Conn. 1 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DOWNING v. SULLIVAN. |
Appeal from superior court, Windham county; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.
Ejectment by Daniel Downing against Jeremiah Sullivan. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
William H. Shields, for appellant. Charles F. Thayer, for appellee.
CARPENTER, J. Action of ejectment by the assignee of a mortgage, who had also become the owner of the equity of redemption, against the mortgagor. The case was tried to the court. On the trial the plaintiff, to prove his title, introduced an execution issued on a judgment in his favor against the defendant, and the officer's return thereon, which execution was levied on the equity of redemption, and the equity set off to the plaintiff in part satisfaction of his judgment He also introduced an assignment by the mortgagee to himself of the mortgage note and the mortgage, he having paid the mortgage debt. The levy of the execution was admitted against the defendant's objection. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
The first error assigned is that the court erred "in admitting in evidence, against the defendant's objection, the execution, and the officer's return thereon." The judgment debt, costs, and charges amounted to $397.88, and the equity of redemption was appraised at $220. The officer says in his return: "Whereupon I set off to said creditor such part or proportion of the said equity of redemption of said debtor's right and interest in said described premises as three hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-eight cents bears to two hundred and twenty dollars, the amount of his whole interest therein, as valued by the appraisers, in part satisfaction of this execution, and of all charges and costs thereon." The defendant now contends that the levy was inoperative to vest the equity of redemption in the plaintiff, inasmuch as the officer in terms set off a proportional part of the equity, instead of setting off the whole, as he might have done, stating the balance remaining due on the execution. We agree that that would have been a simpler, and perhaps a better, way to have stated it; but the course taken amounts to the same thing. The greater includes the less. Such a proportion as $397.88 bears to $220 includes the whole equity of redemption, and leaves a balance due of $177.88 on the execution. There is no difficulty in understanding just what the officer did, and just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Honulik v. Town of Greenwich
...February 8, 1894); Mills v. Britton, 64 Conn. 4, 29 A. 231 (1894) (argued January 3, 1894, decided February 8, 1894); Downing v. Sullivan, 64 Conn. 1, 29 A. 130 (1894) (argued January 3, 1894, decided February 8, 1894). 7. "The constitutions of 1818 (art. [fifth], § 3) and 1955 (art. [fifth......
-
Ashforth v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
...* * * The real interest of the mortgagee in the land is measured by the amount of his debt, and not by his deed. See also Downing v. Sullivan, 64 Conn. 1; 29 Atl. 130; Ensign v. Batterson, 68 Conn. 298; 36 Atl. 51; Cion v. Schupack, 102 Conn. 644; 129 Atl. Under the above quoted decision we......
- Ford v. Hubinger
-
McKelvey v. Creevey
...is, except for a limited purpose, regarded as personal estate and mere security. Bank v. Lawler, 46 Conn. 243, 245; Downing v. Sullivan, 64 Conn. 1, 3, 29 Atl. 130. In accordance with this view it has been held, in the following cases, that the estate of the mortgagor is subject to dower; d......