Grover v. Flye
Grover v. Flye
Opinion of the Court
It is admitted that the sums due on the mortgage to the Loan Fund Association were paid before the sale of the right in equity to redeem was made by the officer; and that these payments were made at or before the times when the several instalments became due according to the stipulation set forth in the condition of the mortgage and the bond which accompanied it and formed part of the transaction. By such payment, on familiar principles, the condition was saved and the mortgagor, the tenant, was in of his old estate. No conveyance or discharge of the mortgage was necessary to revest the estate in the mortgagor, or to defeat the title of the mortgagee. Merrill v. Chase, 3 Allen, 339, and cases cited. Joslyn v. Wyman, ante, 62. The argument, therefore, of the demand-ants, founded on the necessity of recording a release or discharge of a mortgage in order to defeat a title acquired by a judgment
It follows, that the title of the demandants under the sale of the right in equity to redeem the estate is invalid. The premises being unincumbered and held by the judgment debtor as an estate in fee at the time of the service of the execution, could be legally levied on only by an appraisement, and set off in the mode prescribed by law. Forster v. Mellen, 10 Mass. 421. Freeman v. M'Gaw, 15 Pick. 82. Perry v. Hayward, 12 Cush. 344.
Exceptions sustained.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Gilbert Grover & wife v. Vespasian E. Flye
- Status
- Published