Norton v. Palmer
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 142 Mass. 433,8 N.E. 346 |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1886 |
| Parties | NORTON v. PALMER. |
142 Mass. 433
8 N.E. 346
NORTON
v.
PALMER.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.
October 21, 1886.
Writ of entry to foreclose a mortgage. Hearing in the superior court, which found for the demandant, and the tenant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
[142 Mass. 435]J. Branning, for tenant.
Lyman J. Strickland had no assignable interest in said mortgage, and could convey no interest or title whereby demandant can maintain this action against defendant. Given v. Marr, 27 Me. 212; Bell v. Morse, 6 N.H. 210;Merrill v. Chase, 3 Allen, 339;Young v. Miller, 6 Gray, 152-156;Tarbell v. Parker, 101 Mass. 165. The notes of demandant, at the time of the alleged assignment of said mortgage to him, were barred by the statute of limitations, as was also the mortgage. Lewis v. Marshall, 1 McLean, 16;Bank of U.S. v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32;Piatt v. Vattier, 9 Pet. 405;Hawley v. Cramer, 4 Cow. 717;Perry v. Craig, 3 Mo. 516;Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mason, 95;Humbert v. Trinity Church, 7 Paige, 195.
Dewey & Wright, for demandant.
A mortgage, valid at the outset, cannot, unless barred by the statute of limitations, be defeated or discharged except by the performance of the condition. Davis v. Maynard, 9 Mass. 242;Watkins v. Hill, 8 Pick. 522;Pomroy v. Rice, 16 Pick. 22;Thayer v. Mann, 19 Pick. 535;Smith v. Johns, 3 Gray, 517. See Crane v. March, 4 Pick. 131;Bryant v. Damon, 6 Gray, 564;Rice v. Dewey, 13 Gray, 47;Aldrich v. Blake, 134 Mass. 582; Johnson v. Candage, 31 Me. 28; Haynes v. Wellington, 25 Me. 458. The plaintiff's right to foreclose the mortgage is not barred by lapse of time. Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. 110;Cox v. Hoxie, 115 Mass. 120;Ritter v. Phillips, 53 N.Y. 586; 2 Jones, Mortg. (2d Ed.) § 1201. See Pub.St. c. 120, § 4; Earle v. Fiske, 103 Mass. 491; Youngblood v. Vastine, 2 Amer.Rep. 509. Apart from all other questions, the defendant could not set up the statute of limitations against said mortgage until the lapse of 20 years from April 1, 1865. Heyer v. Pruyn, 7 Paige, 465;Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 490; 2 Jones, Mortg. § 1202.
[142 Mass. 433]HOLMES, J.This is a writ of entry to foreclose a mortgage given in October, 1837, by Henry Palmer to Willis Strickland to secure a series of promissory notes payable at different dates. [142 Mass. 434]The demandant holds two of these notes by gift from Allan Hawley, to whom they were indorsed by the mortgagee,
[8 N.E. 347]
with an agreement to hold the mortgage in trust to secure them. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
...Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 Am. Rep. 687; Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315, 37 Atl. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322;Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70, 19 N. W. 751;Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422, 49 N. W. 237;Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, 29 ......
-
Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
...Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195 (20 Am. Rep. 687); Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315 (37 A. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322); Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433 (8 N.E. 346); Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70 (19 N.W. 751); Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422 (49 N.W. 237); Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124 ......
-
Wells Cnty. v. McHenry
...to enforce a lien, even after an action at law to recover the debt secured by the lien is barred by the statute. See Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Shaw v. Silloway, 145 Mass. 503, 14 N. E. 783;Cerney v. Pawlot, 66 Wis. 262, 28 N. W. 183;Coles v. Withers, 33 Grat. 186; Smith v......
-
Ellis v. Fairbanks
...of the mortgaged property in other states. Inge v. Boardman, 2 Ala. 331; Fievel v. Zuber, 67 Tex. 275, 3 S.W. 273; Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N.E. 346. In disposing of this case we have considered simply the exceptions as made to the answer and whether the same were well taken. The ......
-
Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
...Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 Am. Rep. 687; Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315, 37 Atl. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322;Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70, 19 N. W. 751;Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422, 49 N. W. 237;Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124, 29 ......
-
Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
...Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195 (20 Am. Rep. 687); Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315 (37 A. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322); Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433 (8 N.E. 346); Webber v. Ryan, 54 Mich. 70 (19 N.W. 751); Slingerland v. Sherer, 46 Minn. 422 (49 N.W. 237); Cheney v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 124 ......
-
Wells Cnty. v. McHenry
...to enforce a lien, even after an action at law to recover the debt secured by the lien is barred by the statute. See Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N. E. 346;Shaw v. Silloway, 145 Mass. 503, 14 N. E. 783;Cerney v. Pawlot, 66 Wis. 262, 28 N. W. 183;Coles v. Withers, 33 Grat. 186; Smith v......
-
Ellis v. Fairbanks
...of the mortgaged property in other states. Inge v. Boardman, 2 Ala. 331; Fievel v. Zuber, 67 Tex. 275, 3 S.W. 273; Norton v. Palmer, 142 Mass. 433, 8 N.E. 346. In disposing of this case we have considered simply the exceptions as made to the answer and whether the same were well taken. The ......