Inhabitants of Oakham v. Inhabitants of Rutland
Inhabitants of Oakham v. Inhabitants of Rutland
Opinion of the Court
The pauper did not acquire a settlement in Oakham. To obtain a settlement in the fourth mode, the person must have an estate of inheritance or freehold, in some town, and live on the same three years successively. Here, by the entry to foreclose by the mortgagee, he taking actual possession, and afterwards receiving the rents and profits, the pauper ceased to hold the estate as a freehold. Such an entry to foreclose is considered to many purposes as an eviction, and as the commencement of a new title. Goodwin v. Richardson, 11 Mass. 469 ; Ballard v. Carter, 5 Pick. 112; Tufts v. Adams, 8 Pick. 547.
The mortgagee, after such entry, took the rents and profits to his own use, subject only to account for the same, in case of redemption. Some of the cases state, that a right of
The certificate indorsed on the mortgage deed, signed by the mortgagor, stating that the mortgagee had entered for condition broken, duly recorded, is made evidence by the statute (Rev. Sts. c. 107, § 2), fixing the time of the mortgagee’s entry to foreclose; and it is not competent for the defendants to avoid the effect of it, by proof, that he did not actually go upon the land. Defendants defaulted.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Inhabitants of Oakham v. The Inhabitants of Rutland
- Status
- Published