Petition of Bull
| Decision Date | 21 May 1887 |
| Citation | 10 A. 484,15 R.I. 534 |
| Parties | Petition of BULL and others, for Opinion of Court. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case stated for an opinion of the court under Pub. St. R. I. c. 192, § 23.
Henry Bull owns an estate on Thames street, in Newport, known as the "Engs Estate," and Martha S. Cozzens et al. own the next estate on the north, known as the "Gould Estate," A strip of land 11 feet in width separates the estates. In A. D. 1799, William Vernon, who then owned both estates, conveyed the former to William Engs, Jr., and in his deed covenanted, "for myself, my heirs and assigns, to and with the said William Engs, Jr., his heirs and assigns, that no edifice or obstruction of light shall ever be erected on the north side of said dwelling-house to the distance of eleven feet, extending northerly from said dwelling-house as it now stands; and that the said William Engs, Jr., his heirs and assigns, shall have free egress and regress to the north side of said dwelling-house for the purpose of repairing the same, and that the clapboarding of said north side of said dwelling-house shall not be damaged by piling wood or any other thing against it, nor shall the spout for catching rain-water be damaged or disturbed or removed excepting by the said William Engs, Jr., or his heirs or assigns; and it shall be at the option of said William Engs, Jr., to maintain the spout, or to let the water drop from the eaves of said north side." The dwelling-house spoken of stood on the Engs estate, along the south side of the 11-foot strip.
In A. D. 1870, Willian C. Cozzens, George Cozzens, and Henry W. Cozzens, then tenants of the Gould estate, purchased the Engs estate, and mortgaged the latter by a deed of mortgage, which conveyed the premises, "with all the rights and easements," and contained the reservation: "It is understood, however, that these grantors are at liberty to release to the heirs of Isaac Gould any restriction in former deeds against erecting any edifice or obstruction of light within eleven feet of the north side of a portion of the buildings; and also providing that the jet on the north side of said building is continued only by consent of said heirs, without prejudice to the land covered by said projection other than specified in this deed;" and also contained a power of sale, which authorized the mortgagee, his executors, administrators, or assigns, to sell, * * * and in his or their own names, or as the attorney of the grantor, * * * to "convey, the same absolutely and in fee-simple to the purchaser or purchasers accordingly."
Under the powers in the mortgage deed, and after condition broken, the assignee of the mortgagee in A. D. 1877 sold and conveyed the mortgaged premises to Henry Bull. Meanwhile the mortgagors occupied both estates, and put up a building on the 11-foot strip. William C. Cozzens died in December, A. D. 1876. In A. D. 1884, George Cozzens, Henry W. Cozzens, and the heirs and administrators of William C. Cozzens, executed to the heirs of Isaac Gould, and their successors in title to the Gould estate, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCormick v. Parsons
...if such sale was necessary to pay the note and costs of sale. Reed v. Jones, 133 Mass. 116; Werner v. Tuch, 52 Hun 272; Bull & Cozzens, Petitioners, 15 R.I. 534; McComber v. Mills, 80 Cal. 111; Bank v. Hiller, 106 Mich. 118; Chrisman v. Hay, 43 F. 555. (7) The trustee's deed conveyed to McC......
-
Swedish-American National Bank of Minneapolis v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company
...of the mortgage or acquired subsequently. Barnard v. Wilson, 74 Cal. 512, 16 P. 307; Orr v. Stewart, 67 Cal. 275, 7 P. 693; In re Bull, 15 R.I. 534, 10 A. 484. It possible that had the rights of some third person, a stranger to the transaction, intervened, a foreclosure would, as to him, pa......
-
Swedish-Am. Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...of the mortgage or acquired subsequently. Barnard v. Wilson, 74 Cal. 512, 16 Pac. 307;Orr v. Stewart, 67 Cal. 275, 7 Pac. 693;In re Bull, 15 R. I. 534, 10 Atl. 484. It is possible that had the rights of some third person, a stranger to the transaction, intervened, a foreclosure would, as to......
-
Matteodo v. Ricci
...128 Mass. 489; Cavanaugh v. Wholey, 143 Cal. 164, 76 P. 979, 981; Innes v. Ferguson, 21 Ont.App. 323, 24 Can.Sup.Ct. 703; In re Bull, 15 R.I. 534, 10 A. 484; 19 C.J. 904, § 87. The complainants' counsel argues that none of these authorities are in point on this precise question. We have exa......