Richmond v. Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank
| Decision Date | 03 July 1933 |
| Citation | 283 Mass. 380,186 N.E. 551 |
| Parties | RICHMOND v. CHARLESTOWN FIVE CENTS SAV. BANK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Donnelly, Judge.
Bill by Rose Richmond against the Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank. From an interlocutory decree confirming the master's report for defendant, and from a final decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
M. Caro, of Boston, for appellant.
W. B. Grant and E. W. Bancroft, both of Boston, for appellee.
On February 12, 1929, the plaintiff gave the defendant, in renewal of an earlier note, a collateral note dated November 22, 1928, for $39,000, payable on November 22, 1929. As collateral security the plaintiff assigned to the defendant six mortgages of real estate containing the statutory power of sale (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 183, § 21), with their accompanying notes, held by the plaintiff. In the collateral note was a provision that upon failure to pay the loan the holder is empowered ‘to sell without demand, notice or advertisement, this note and said securities or any part thereof, either at public or private sale, and to foreclose said mortgage [sic], (it being agreed that the holder hereof may purchase at said sale, and that no other purchaser shall be answerable for the application of the purchase money).’ There was some talk, at the time when the collateral note was given, of renewing it further at its expiration, but no binding agreement to do so was made.
The collateral note not being paid at maturity, the defendant under the terms of that note had a right as against the plaintiff to foreclose any of the mortgages assigned to it as collateral. It had a right as against the several mortgagors to do so, because all the mortgage notes as well as taxes were overdue. In December, 1929, the defendant published notices for the foreclosure of four of the six mortgages, and appointed January 3, 1930, as the day for the foreclosure sale. The hours of sale were named as 2:30 p. m. as to one parcel, 2:35 p. m. as to another, 2:40 p. m. as to a third, and 3 p. m. as to the fourth. Each sale was to take place on the premises described in the mortgage. The plaintiff received ample notice of the proposed sales.
The sales took place at the day and hours appointed, during a light rain. The first three parcels are very close together. The plaintiff's attorney and three other persons were present, besides the auctioneer and two representatives of the defendant. A representative of the defendant was the only bidder at the first three sales, and he bid in the first three parcels for the defendant at $10,000, $5,000 and $3,000 respectively. At the last sale, of the fourth parcel, a representative of the plaintiff bought for $6,000, which was $1,000 more than the amount of the mortgage foreclosed. Of the two mortgages not foreclosed, one for $4,500 was paid to the defendant and the amount was...
To continue reading
Request your trial