Paddock v. Potter
| Decision Date | 04 February 1895 |
| Citation | 67 Vt. 360,31 A. 784 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | PADDOCK et al. v. POTTER et al. |
Appeal in chancery, Bennington county; Taft, Chancellor.
Petition by C. A. Paddock and others against A. H. Potter and another to foreclose a mortgage.
Foreclosure was decreed as to all the pieces sought to be foreclosed, except the sixth, and the petition was dismissed as to that. The petitioners appeal. Affirmed.
April 2, 1889, the defendants, A. H. Potter and wife, executed to the orator Bates, and the testate of the orator, Paddock, the mortgage which it was sought to foreclose. The mortgage describes specifically five different parcels of land, and no question was made by the defendant but what the orators were entitled to foreclosure in respect to these parcels. The mortgage also contained this clause: "And we further hereby convey any and all other real estate in the town of Pownal that we or either of us own or possess, or any interest that we or either of us may have in any other real estate in said Pownal." Under this clause the orators claimed foreclosure of four other parcels not specifically described. As to the seventh, eighth, and ninth parcels no serious question was made by the defendants, the dispute being upon the sixth, as to which the facts were these: March 9, 1884, one Sarah E. Lincoln executed and acknowledged, in due form, a deed of certain land in the town of Pownal to the defendant A. H. Potter, being said sixth parcel. By the terms of this deed, Mrs. Lincoln reserved to herself the use of the premises during her lifetime. The deed was not delivered by her to the defendant Potter until about October 13, 1891. It was at once taken by him to the town clerk of Pownal, and recorded. Mrs. Lincoln deceased in 1892, and before the commencement of this suit The premises were conveyed to Mrs. Lincoln by defendant Potter and his brother E. A. Potter, upon the same day that she executed the deed in question. At that time there was a dwelling house upon the land nearly completed, and the master found that the conveyance from Potter and his brother was in pursuance of an agreement to do so if she erected the house; that the value of the land before the erection of the house was from $200 to $300, and of the house $5,000; that there was no consideration for the conveyance to Mrs. Lincoln, who was the mother of defendant Potter's first wife, except the hope that it might result in benefit to him; that he had no legal right to demand a conveyance from her; but that there was always an expectation upon his part that she would make the conveyance as she did; and that he had expended considerable labor upon the premises without compensation, upon the strength of this expectation. The mortgage was given to Ichabod F. Paddock and Daniel F. Bates jointly, and was conditioned for the payment to the said Paddock of two promissory notes for the sum of $2,100, and for the payment to the said Bates of two other promissory notes for the like sum of $2,100. Upon the trial before the master, the defendant A. H. Potter was offered as a witness. The orators objected that his testimony was incompetent, for the reason that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Homewood Dairy Products Co. v. Robinson
...198; Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792; McConnon & Co. v. Kuhlmann, 220 Mo.App. 821, 278 S.W. 822; Paddock v. Potter, 67 Vt. 360, 31 A. 784. While this Court does not seem to have had the question before it, we think it is a fair construction of our statute, and does n......
-
Cecelia De Nottbeck v. Rena B. Chapman
...the statute, and the death of Mrs. Chapman did not affect the competency of the plaintiff. Read v. Sturtevant, 40 Vt. 521; Paddock v. Potter, 67 Vt. 360, 31 A. 784; Pope v. Hogan, 92 Vt. 250, 102 A. 937. follows that the offer of the plaintiff to testify in her own behalf, since the other p......
-
Hentz v. Darden
...198; Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792; McConnon & Co. v. Kuhlmann, 220 Mo.App. 821, 278 S.W. 822; Paddock v. Potter, 67 Vt. 360, 31 A. 784. If the plaintiffs could prove, as they offered to do, that the statements made by the deceased husband were made in the presence......
-
de Nottbeck v. Chapman
...the statute, and the death of Mrs. Chapman did not affect the competency of the plaintiff. Read v. Sturtevant, 40 Vt. 521; Paddock v. Potter, 67 Vt. 360, 31 Atl. 784; Pope v. Hogan, 92 Vt. 937, 102 Atl. 937. It follows that the offer of the plaintiff to testify in her own behalf, since the ......