Strong v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 03 July 1877 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elizabeth F. Strong v. Abraham Jackson & others |
Argued November 22, 1876
Suffolk. Bill in equity by Elizabeth F. Strong against Abraham Jackson, his assignees in bankruptcy, Edwin E. Kingsley, the Tremont National Bank, the First National Bank of Boston and John McQuaid, to redeem a mortgage.
At the hearing, before Endicott, J., the parties agreed that such decree might be entered, without regard to the form of the pleadings, as the court should think proper, on the facts to decide their respective rights, and, there being no fact in dispute, the judge reserved the case for the consideration of the full court. If the plaintiff was entitled to redeem, the case was to be sent to a master. The facts appear in the opinion.
Plaintiff allowed to redeem from the Tremont National Bank the McQuaid note and mortgage, upon payment to the Tremont Bank of the kingsley note.
J. Fox for the plaintiff.
R. M Morse, Jr. & F. V. Balch, for the Tremont National Bank.
W. G Russell & G. Putnam, Jr., for the First National Bank.
OPINION
We have again to decide which of several persons who have done no wrong shall suffer by reason of the fraud of Abraham Jackson. The plaintiff, on April 28, 1874, was the owner of a note made to her by John McQuaid for the sum of $ 3500, which note was secured by a first mortgage upon certain land in Boston. On June 30, 1874, her son in law, Edwin E. Kingsley, desired to borrow of Abraham Jackson the sum of $ 3200, which Jackson agreed to lend upon receiving an assignment of said mortgage as collateral security therefor. The plaintiff, to accommodate her son in law, assented to this, and executed an assignment of said note and mortgage to Jackson on that day. The assignment in terms expressed "the same being collateral to Edwin E. Kingsley's note for $ 3200, dated June 30, 1874." The mortgage note was indorsed by the plaintiff in blank.
On January 7, 1875, Jackson assigned the mortgage to the Tremont National Bank as security for a previous debt of his to the blank, indorsing the Kingsley note in blank and passing that and the assignment of the McQuaid mortgage to the blank, but retained in his own possession the McQuaid note. The assignments to Jackson and from Jackson to the Tremont Bank were recorded, and the latter contained the same language as the former, "the same collateral to Edwin E. Kingsley's note for $ 3200, dated June 30, 1874."
On January 25, 1875, Jackson passed the McQuaid note with his blank indorsement to the First National Bank, as collateral security for a loan then made by said bank to him. He also, upon a separate paper, assigned the McQuaid mortgage to said bank, in which no reference was made to the Kingsley note.
In this condition of things, the First National Bank contends that it has the right to hold and collect the McQuaid note to its own use, and to have a decree that the Tremont National Bank hold the mortgage in trust for the benefit of said First National Bank. The Tremont National Bank asks for a decree that the First National Bank shall hold the McQuaid note in trust for it as collateral security for the Kingsley note, and to convey the same to it, so that it may be surrendered to the plaintiff upon the payment of the Kingsley note. The plaintiff desires a reassignment to herself of the mortgage and note, upon the payment of the Kingsley note, for which she pledged it.
The assignment by Jackson to the Tremont National Bank of the McQuaid mortgage, by which in terms he sold and transferred "the mortgage deed, the real estate thereby conveyed, the promissory note, debt and claim thereby secured, and the covenants in said mortgage contained," made the McQuaid note, as between himself and the bank, the property of the Tremont National Bank. It became the property of said bank, not only as against Jackson, but as against all the world except a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice. The First National Bank claims to be such holder, and unless it is, it has no claim upon the note. Is that bank such a holder? This involves perhaps as much an inference of fact as a principle of law, or rather a mixed question of law and fact; but whether an inference of fact or a question of law, upon the reservation in equity by a single justice, the full court must decide it. Parks v. Bishop, 120 Mass. 340. The claim of the First National Bank is that the note is a negotiable promissory note, not matured, and that there was nothing to indicate that it was not what it seemed to be, and nothing to show that Jackson was not the owner of it and authorized to deal with it; and that, although it purported to be secured by mortgage, yet, as held in Morris v. Bacon, ante, 58, the mortgage is but an incident to the debt, and whether the mortgage is or is not available is a risk which the assignee of the debt is content to take.
In the cases in which the question has been whether a party to a transaction is affected with notice of other equities, it is often stated that a particular fact is or is not sufficient to charge a party with notice. For example, the cases are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Gasaplan v. Danielson
...if the note was not endorsed (Westminster National Bank v. Graustein, 270 Mass. 565, 574, 170 N. E. 621) or delivered. Strong v. Jackson, 123 Mass. 60, 62,25 Am. Rep. 19;Herman v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 218 Mass. 181, 185, 105 N. E. 450, Ann Cas. 1916A, 822;Ingram v. Mandler (C. ......
-
Cassedy v. Wells, Jones, Wells & Lipscomb
... ... the administratrix appeals. Reversed and remanded ... Reversed and remanded ... Butler ... & Snow, of Jackson, for appellant ... We take ... the position that the title of Mrs. Logue to the note was ... defective because she negotiated it in ... finding of bad faith, especially if the consideration is ... grossly inadequate ... Strong ... v. Jackson, 123 Mass. 60 ... Accommodation ... indorsers are not held to strict accountability as indorsers ... for value ... ...
-
Geffen v. Paletz
...mortgage is recorded. In determining the rights of the plaintiff, the note and mortgage are to be construed together. Strong v. Jackson, 123 Mass. 60, 64,25 Am.Rep. 19. The intestate must be held to have known that, by the assignment, whatever rights he had depended upon the note and mortga......
-
Cunningham v. Toye
...equities in the case. This notice was deducible from the face of the notes themselves. 90 Ark. 97; 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 306; Id. 304; 123 Mass. 60. WOOD, J., (after stating the facts). The only question necessary to decide is whether or not appellant was an innocent purchaser for value. ......