Island Pond Nat. Bank v. Lacroix
Decision Date | 04 February 1932 |
Citation | 158 A. 684 |
Parties | ISLAND POND NAT. BANK v. LACROIX et al. |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Copyrighted material omitted.]
Copyrighted material omitted.]
Appeal in Chancery; Julius A. Willcox, Chancellor.
Proceeding to foreclose a mortgage by the Island Pond National Bank against Alfred Lacroix, Frank Gray, and Solon Gray, administrator. Decree in favor of plaintiff against all defendants, and defendant Prank Gray appeals.
Decree for plaintiff against defendant Frank Gray reversed, and cause remanded, with mandate.
Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, and THOMPSON, JJ.
Lee E. Emerson, of Barton, for appellant.
Oliver H. Cameron, of Island Pond, and Searies, Graves & Waterman, of St. Johnsbury, for appellee.
The plaintiff is the assignee of a mortgage executed by the defendant Alfred Lacroix on July 7, 1915, to one Oscar N. Nadeau to secure the payment of his promissory note of that date for $900, payable to said Nadeau or order, in yearly payments of $50 or more, with interest annually.
This is a proceeding to foreclose the mortgage. The bill was taken as confessed as to defendants Lacroix and Solon Gray, administrator. Defendant Frank Gray answered to the bill. The substance of his answer is that he has a title which is superior in equity to that of the plaintiff. There was a hearing before the chancellor and a finding of facts was filed. Defendant Frank Gray excepted to various findings, and a bill of exceptions was allowed and filed. There was a decree against all of the defendants. Defendant Frank Gray, hereinafter called the defendant, was allowed and took an appeal from the decree.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant's bill of exceptions is not before this court and cannot be considered a part of the appeal because it was not filed within twenty days from the date of the decree, that being the time within which an appeal from a final decree may be filed. G. L. 1561. G. L. 1511 provides that exceptions taken on the trial of controverted questions of fact before a chancellor shall be available on appeal in the same manner as in county court causes tried by the court. This question was before this court in Essex Storage Elec. Co. v. Victory Lumber Co., 93 Vt. 437, 445, 108 A. 426, and it was there held that, under the provisions of G. L. 1511, construed with the provisions of G. L. 1609, a party excepting to the findings of a chancellor has thirty days from the day on which a final decree is filed in which to file his exceptions. Gray v. Brattleboro Trust Co., 97 Vt. 270, 273, 122 A. 670; Fire District, etc., v. Graniteville Water Co., 102 Vt. 511, 150 A. 459. Also, see, United States v. Cano, 100 Vt. 111, 135 A. 1. It appears from the record that the defendant's exceptions were seasonably filed, so they are properly before us for consideration.
It appears from the finding of facts and exhibits referred to that on July 7, 1915, the defendant, by his warranty deed, conveyed a farm of about 174 acres in the town of Morgan to said Alfred Lacroix; and on the same day said Lacroix executed and delivered a note for $4,800 and a mortgage of said premises securing said note to the defendant. Said note was given for the purchase price of the premises, and included a mortgage for $1,400 to the plaintiff, which the defendant assumed and agreed to pay. There is a notation on the mortgage from Lacroix to the defendant that said mortgage of $1,400 had been paid by the defendant. On the same day, Lacroix also gave a note for $350, secured by a second mortgage of the same premises to Charles J. Oben, and a note for $900, secured by a third mortgage of the same premises, to said Oscar N. Nadeau. This third mortgage states that it is given to secure the payment of a part of the purchase price of said premises, and, also, that the premises "are free from every encumbrance except a mortgage to Frank Gray, this day given for $4800.00, and a mortgage to Charles J. Oben, also this day given for $350.00."
On November 25, 1925, Lacroix and his wife executed and delivered to the defendant their note, dated June 1, 1925, for $4,400, the amount then due on the note for $4,800, and a mortgage securing the same on the identical premises covered by the mortgage securing the note for $4,800, and it was recorded in the land records of Morgan on November 27, 1925. This mortgage describes the premises as "free from every encumbrance." On the same day the defendant discharged his mortgage securing the note for $4,800, and on November 27, 1925, the discharge was recorded on the same page on which the mortgage was recorded.
The chancellor finds concerning this transaction as follows:
The defendant excepted to these findings for the failure of the chancellor to find that the defendant discharged his first mortgage and note because he was induced to do so by the fraud practiced upon him by Lacroix. There is no error here, as the only conclusion to be drawn from these findings is that the act of the defendant in discharging his mortgage and note was induced by the fraud of Lacroix. Roberts v. Hughes, 86 Vt. 76, 79, 83 A. 807; Ste. Marie v. Wells, 93 Vt. 398, 108 A. 270. It is true that the chancellor says that the defendant admitted that he did not inquire further or examine the records in any way to determine the truthfulness of the statement of Lacroix; but the defendant was not required to make any inquiry nor to examine the records, as he was entitled to rely upon the statement made to him by Lacroix. Manley v. Johnson, 85 Vt. 262, 265, 81 A. 919; Oben v. Adams, 89 Vt. 158, 162, 94 A. 506; Maidment v. Frazier, 90 Vt. 520, 527, 98 A. 987; Ste. Marie v. Wells, supra.
Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the findings of facts, to which the defendant took several exceptions, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood Preserving Corporation v. Coney Grocery Co.
... ... fatal error ... Bullard ... v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 160 So. 280; Alexander v ... Hancock, 164 So ... Co., 268 Mo. 547, 188 S.W. 117; Island Pond National ... Bank v. Lacroix, 158 A. 684; 25 F.2d ... ...
-
Dieter v. Scott
... ... White River Savings Bank v. Capital Savings Bank & Trust Co., 77 Vt. 123, 128, 59 A. 197, 107 Am.St.Rep. 754; Island Pond National Bank v. Lacroix, 104 Vt. 282, 295, 158 A ... ...
-
Rhone Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. Dekalb Genetics Corp.
... ... Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 645, 119 S.Ct. 2199, 144 L.Ed.2d 575, 51 ... Barden, 49 N.Y. 286, 291-92 (1872); Island Pond Nat'l Bank v. Lacroix, 104 Vt. 282, 158 A. 684, 693 ... ...
-
Island Pond National Bank v. Alfred Lacroix
... ... French v. White , 78 Vt. 89, 62 A. 35, 2 L ... R. A. (N. S.) 804; Whittle v. Skinner , 23 ... Vt. 531; White River Sav. Bank v. Capital Sav ... Bank, supra , page 128 of 77 Vt. 123, 59 A. 197, 107 A ... S. R. 754; American Exchange Bank v. Federal ... Nat. Bank , 226 Pa. 483, 75 A. 683, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 666, 134 A. S. R. 1071, 18 Ann. Cas. [104 Vt. 296] 444; ... Christian v. Atlantic, etc., R. R. , 133 ... U.S. 233, 241, 33 L.Ed. 589, 10 S.Ct. 260, 263; ... Millard v. Green , 94 Conn. 597, 612, 110 A ... 177, 182, 9 A. L. R. 1610; ... ...