Miller v. Bronson

• Decision Date: 04 April 1904
• Citation: 26 R.I. 62,58 A. 257
• Parties: MILLER v. BRONSON.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

58 A. 257

26 R.I. 62

MILLER

v. BRONSON.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 4, 1904.

Suit by Martha D. Miller against Meyer Bronson. Bill dismissed.

Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and DOUGLAS, JJ.

William Fitch, for complainant.

Edwin C. Peirce, for respondent.

STINESS, C. J. This is a bill for specific performance, alleging that the parties entered into an agreement in writing July 31, 1902, for the sale of a lot of land with a brick building thereon, on North Main and Stampers streets, in Providence, for the sum of $5,400, the deed to be delivered on September 8, 1902, and the complainant to occupy said premises free of rent until that time; that the respondent paid $100 on account of purchase money, and on September 8th the time was extended to September 15, 1902, to allow further time for the examination of the title. On September 15th the respondent refused to take the estate because of clouds upon the title. It is undisputed that three mortgages were then on record covering this property, which were not discharged. Two of these had been transferred to Elisha C. Mowry. All these mortgages were executed nearly 30 years ago, but there is nothing to show for how long a time they may have been kept in force, or that they were not valid incumbrances at the time of the alleged contract. Upon the respondent's objection to the title by reason of these outstanding mortgages, the complainant obtained a release from the heirs of Elisha C. Mowry as to the two mortgages transferred to him; and she claimed that the mortgage to Hennessey was paid, because said Mowry made a report to the court of probate of North Providence, in his capacity as guardian of Vashti W. Angell, and under authority given in settling the estate, that he had paid "J. B. Hennessey note, $1,160.26." We do not think that the complainant has fully met the objections to her title so as to show that it is what is known as a "marketable" title, which the respondent has the right to have. Quite likely the release by Mowry's heirs may be sufficient as to the mortgages transferred to him, but the complainant did not give notice to the respondent that such release had been secured until March 6, 1903. Meanwhile the respondent had lost the opportunity to raise a part of the purchase money by a mortgage, previously arranged, and had invested his own money in business, supposing that the purchase of this property had fallen through. Although the rule in regard to time, as...