Hannaford v. Charles River Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1922
• Citation: 134 N.E. 795,241 Mass. 196
• Parties: HANNAFORD v. CHARLES RIVER TRUST CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

241 Mass. 196

134 N.E. 795

HANNAFORD

v.CHARLES RIVER TRUST CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 31, 1922.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; E. B. Bishop, Judge.

Action of contract or tort by Louisa M. Hannaford against the Charles River Trust Company for damages for the alleged wrongful discharge of a mortgage. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

The only questions raised by the bill of exceptions were whether the record and judgment in another suit was admissible in evidence to show that the mortgage was fraudulent and void, and that therefore there was no liability, or no damage, or only nominal damage, and whether, in view of this evidence, the court should have directed a verdict for defendant.

Albin L. Richards, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Hurlburt, Jones & Hall, of Boston, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover damages in tort or contract for the alleged wrongful discharge of a mortgage. Frank and Anna Hannaford, brother and sister of the plaintiff, on September 21, 1910, mortgaged the farm owned by them for $13,000. In July, 1912, at which time Frank and Anna Hannaford were indebted to one William Hayden, they executed and delivered to the plaintiff a promissory note for $5,000, secured by a second mortgage on the farm. In March, 1916, the plaintiff borrowed from the defendant the sum of $600, and as security therefor executed and delivered to the defendant an assignment of the second mortgage. In 1917 she paid the loan of $600, and requested the reassignment of the mortgage to herself. The defendant did not reassign the mortgage, but discharged it, and on January 23, 1917, recorded the discharge. The present action is to recover from the defendant because of this discharge of the mortgage. In March, 1917, Hayden brought a suit in equity against Frank, Anna, Mary E. and Louisa M. Hannaford, to set aside the mortgage of $5,000 given to the plaintiff, as fraudulent, because given to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of Frank and Anna Hannaford. The defendants answered in this suit, but did not allege that the mortgage given to Louisa M. had already been discharged of record. In the suit in equity, on August 3, 1917, a final decree was entered that the note and mortgage were fraudulent and void; that Frank and Anna were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $4,700; that execution was to issue against them for said sum and $62.60 interest, and execution for costs amounting to $47.76 was to issue against all the defendants. These amounts were collected by Hayden from the surplus left in the hands of the first mortgagee after the foreclosure of the first mortgage, and these payments made to Hayden exhausted the surplus. Frank and Anna Hannaford, in January, 1917, were adjudged bankrupts, having large liabilities and no assets. Subsequently they received their discharge and the plaintiff has been unable to collect anything on the note secured by the second mortgage.

At the trial the defendant offered the record in the equity suit of Hayden against the Hannafords to contradict the plaintiff and her witnesses, to show the amount of...