Hollis v. Hollis

• Decision Date: 09 December 1891
• Citation: 24 A. 581,84 Me. 96
• Parties: HOLLIS v. HOLLIS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 581

84 Me. 96

HOLLIS

v. HOLLIS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 9, 1891.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Waldo county.

Writ of entry by Mary Hollis against Edmund S. Hollis.

The following are the conditions stated in the mortgage, making a part of the tenant's title:

"Provided, nevertheless, that if the said Renel A. Hollis, his heirs, executors, or administrators, pay to the said Susan Rand, her heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, the sura of three hundred and titty dollars, for which the said Reuel A Hollis has given the said Susan Rand his note on demand, with interest: Now, if the said Susan Rand should die before this note is paid, then this deed & note are null and void, and the said Susan Rand is never to transfer this deed; then this deed, as also a certain note bearing even date with these presents, given by the said Reuel A. Hollis to the said Susan Rand to pay the sum and interest at the time aforesaid, shall both be void, otherwise shall remain in full force."

The words printed in italics are written in said mortgage with a pen.

R. F. Dunton and F. W. Brown, for plaintiff.

W. P. Thompson, for defendant.

VIRGIN, J. Writ of entry. The question is which of the parties has the better title. Both parties claim under Susan Rand.

The demandant's title. On May 21, 1875, Susan Rand, by her deed of warranty, conveyed the demanded premises to her son Reuel, who on the same day mortgaged back to her the same premises to secure his promissory note of the same date, for $350, payable on demand, with interest.

On June 26, 1876, Reuel quitclaimed his title to one Grant, who, on March 3, 1877, quitclaimed his interest to the demandant.

The defendant claims title through an alleged foreclosure of the mortgage by Reuel to his mother, of May 21, 1875, and the probated will of the mortgagee, (Su Ban Rand,) wherein the use and possession of all her real estate was given to the defendant and his wife during their natural lives.

The condition in the mortgage is somewhat peculiar. It consists of the mention of two distinct events, by the happening of either of which the note and mortgage were both to become void. One—usually found in the printed form—that on the payment of the note at the time mentioned therein the note and mortgage "both to become void;" and the other (written in the blank space between the clauses of the former) in these words: "Now, if the said Susan Rand should die before this note is paid,...