Glidden v. Town of Newport

• Decision Date: 05 March 1907
• Citation: 66 A. 117,74 N.H. 207
• Parties: GLIDDEN v. TOWN OF NEWPORT.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

66 A. 117

74 N.H. 207

GLIDDEN

v. TOWN OF NEWPORT.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Sullivan.

March 5, 1907.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Sullivan County; Wallace, Judge.

Petition by Emery J. Glidden against the town of Newport for the abatement of taxes. Petition dismissed, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

In November, 1903, Edson W. and Julius E. Harvey were in possession of a farm in Newport under a bond for a deed from one Fletcher. Fletcher was pressing them for the payment of $1,350 due upon the bond, and they applied to the plaintiff for a loan of the money. The plaintiff agreed to loan them the money, he to have a deed of the farm and to give them a bond conditioned that he would convey the farm to them upon the payment of the $1,350 and interest. November 25, 1903, the plaintiff took a deed of the farm from Fletcher, paid him $1,350, and gave a bond to the Harveys, binding himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, in the sum of $5,000, as follows: "Whereas, the above bounden Emery J. Glidden has this day agreed to sell to the said Edson W. Harvey and Julius E. Harvey the following described tract of land [describing it], on condition that the said obligees shall pay the sum of thirteen hundred and fifty dollars in manner following, to wit, by yearly payments of fifty dollars, the first of said payments to be paid on or before the 25th day of November, 1903, and annual interest on the principal to be paid on or before the 25th day of November of each year: Now, the condition of this obligation is such that if the said Edson W. Harvey and Julius E. Harvey shall pay the said sum of thirteen hundred and fifty dollars and interest in manner above described, and shall in the meantime pay all taxes on said premises, keep the buildings reasonably insured for the benefit of the said Emery J. Glidden as his interest shall appear * * * and the said Emery J. Glidden shall on the completion of the said payments and interest, and the performance of the other agreements and covenants by the said obligees to be performed, make, execute, and deliver, or cause to be made, executed, and delivered a good and sufficient warranty deed to the said obligees of said premises, and the said obligees shall carry on the said farm in a husbandlike manner and shall keep the buildings on said premises in reasonable repair, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue." In December, 1904, one Thatcher requested the plaintiff to loan him $500 with which to purchase the Cutting farm in Newport. The plaintiff agreed to do so if Thatcher would convey the farm to him and allow him to retain two acres of it; the plaintiff to give Thatcher a bond for a deed of the remainder of the farm. Thatcher purchased and conveyed the farm to the plaintiff on December 31, 1904, for $515 paid him by the plaintiff, who at once gave Thatcher a bond binding himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators in the penal sum of $1,000 to convey said remainder to Thatcher upon the payment of $500 and interest, etc. The condition of the bond is substantially like that of the Harvey bond, excepting that it contains a provision by which the obligor is to allow the obligee to have full possession and control of the premises while the payments are being made. The Harveys have been in possession of the farm mentioned in their bond ever since its date. Thatcher took possession of the farm described in his bond immediately upon its execution, and he and his assigns have been in possession since. Both farms were taxed to the plaintiff in 1905—the first one at $2,000, and the last one at $500—and he or the obligees paid the taxes. Payments of principal and interest have been made and have been indorsed upon the bonds. No note or other obligation was taken by the plaintiff from the obligees. One purpose of the plaintiff in taking the papers in the form described was to avoid being taxed for the $1,350 and $500 paid by him. Another reason was his belief that this course gave him better security than a mortgage would give, and still another reason in the latter case was the obtaining of the two acres of land. The court found that these transactions were in effect mortgages, aside from the fact that in the last case the plaintiff obtained two acres of land for little or nothing. The plaintiff was also taxed in Newport in 1905 for $1,500, money at interest. It was this portion of the tax that he asked to have abated.

Frank O. Chellis, for plaintiff....