Sanford v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 11 January 1879 |
| Citation | 126 Mass. 146 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Samuel T. Sanford v. Emeline Pierce & another |
Argued October 24, 1878
Bristol. Bill in equity, filed February 13, 1877, to redeem a parcel of land in Fall River from a mortgage.
The case was referred to a master, who reported that the plaintiff owed the defendants, who are his sisters, the sum of $ 400 each, for which he gave his note for $ 800 secured by the mortgage in question; that the defendant Emeline pierce, from the date of the mortgage, has lived with her husband in New Bedford, and has never been in the actual possession of the mortgaged premises, or of any part of it that the other defendant, Malvina F. Wady, lived with her husband, John H. Wady, in the upper tenement of the dwelling-house on the mortgaged premises from February 11 1871, to January 4, 1877, but carried on no separate business of her own; that at the time Mrs. Wady moved into this tenement she was induced by the plaintiff to believe that she was the legal owner of 4/50 ths of the mortgaged property that she also believed that her two sisters and the plaintiff owned 4/50 ths each, and their mother owned 34/50 ths; that John H. Wady, in the presence and hearing of his wife, and with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, made a bargain with Charity Sanford, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants, to have this tenement by paying taxes, making repairs, and looking after the place; that Wady and his wife occupied the tenement from February 11, 1871, to April 15, 1873, believing the above facts; that on the latter date they and the defendant Pierce learned that the plaintiff was the legal owner of the mortgaged premises, and that the only interest the defendants had in the property was as mortgagees; that Wady and his wife continued to occupy the tenement until January 4, 1877, knowing the true state of the title, but no demand for rent was made by the plaintiff, and no new arrangement was made, the plaintiff believing that the rent was due from Mrs. Wady, and would be offset against the mortgage debt; that Charity Sanford died in December, 1871; and that John H. Wady is possessed of no property, and had none during the occupancy of the tenement; and stated the account in the alternative.
Hearing before Ames, J., who, by consent of parties, reserved the case for the consideration of the full court, upon the questions of law arising thereon; such decree to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...under his tenancy by the curtesy, was not such possession as to entitle the plaintiff to any reduction for rents and profits. Sanford v. Pierce, 126 Mass. 146. KNOWLTON, J. The defendant is the assignee of a mortgage of real estate given June 1, 1873, to secure payment of $1,100, and intere......