Peoples Sav. Bank v. Corrado
| Decision Date | 18 February 1964 |
| Citation | 151 Conn. 388,198 A.2d 209 |
| Parties | PEOPLES SAVINGS BANK v. Michael N. CORRADO et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
William J. Butler, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Harold Gersten, Hartford, for appellant (defendant Gagliardi).
Roman J. Lexton, New Britain, with whom was Martin F. Stempien, New Britain, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
The only question on this appeal is whether a mortgage deed to the plaintiff contained a sufficient statement of the essential terms of the mortgage so as to constitute the mortgage a lien--on the real estate described in the mortgage deed--prior in right to a judgment lien which the defendant Victor Gagliardi had placed on the property. Gagliardi will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant.
A copy of the note, executed by the defendant Corrado on April 30, 1959, was attached to and made a part of the mortgage deed given to secure payment of the note. It was recited in the note that the maker promised to pay the plaintiff the principal sum of $12,000, with 'interest from date, payable monthly,' on the unpaid balance of the note. It was further provided that the principal sum and interest were payable in 'equal successive monthly installments of Eighty-two and 56/100--($82.56) Dollars each or, should the interest rate hereof be increased, then in such monthly installments additionally sufficient to pay such increase in the rate of interest, commencing on the 5th day of September, 1959, and continuing until said principal sum, with interest, has been fully paid.' On April 30, 1959, the mortgage deed was executed and recorded in the land records. The plaintiff instituted foreclosure proceedings by writ dated January 26, 1962.
The judgment lien, filed on May 12, 1960, was effective from February 16, 1960, the date when the property was attached. General Statutes § 49-44. The defendant filed a special defense in which he alleged that, as to his lien, the mortgage was invalid since it did not state with reasonable certainty the nature and terms of te indebtedness allegedly secured by the mortgage. The court overruled the special defense and rendered judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff; the redemption dates for subsequent encumbrancers were designated. The defendant appealed.
As we understand the defendant's claim, it is that the failure to set out specifically in the mortgage deed the rate of interest charged and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dart and Bogue Co., Inc. v. Slosberg
...to that object; hence all need not be stated." Winchell v. Coney, 54 Conn. 24, 27, 5 A. 354 (1886); Peoples Savings Bank v. Corrado, 151 Conn. 388, 391, 198 A.2d 209 (1964); Lampson Lumber Co. v. Chiarelli, 100 Conn. 301, 309, 123 A. 909 (1924). Errors and omissions in the recorded mortgage......
-
Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Lorenzato
...claimant, exercising common prudence and ordinary diligence, can ascertain the extent of the encumbrance. People Savings Bank v. Corrado, 151 Conn. 388, 391, 198 A.2d 209 (1964); Sadd v. Heim, 143 Conn. 582, 585, 124 A.2d 522 (1956); Swaye v. Murphy, 126 Conn. 497, 500, 12 A.2d 547 (1940); ......
-
Housing Authority of City of Hartford v. McKenzie
...293, 16 A.2d 593, 594 (1940); see State v. American News Co., 152 Conn. 101, 111-12, 203 A.2d 296 (1964); Peoples Savings Bank v. Corrado, 151 Conn. 388, 390, 198 A.2d 209 (1964). This constructive condition does not depend on the intent of the parties, but is implied by law. 3A Corbin, Con......
- Staub v. Anderson