Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873

O'Connell v. Kelly

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided November 15, 1873 · Wells

114 Mass. 97

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Goldman v. Damon (Mass. 1930)
McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (Ala. 2008)
In re Mellino (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts 2005)
Davis v. Newburyport Five Cents Savings Bank (Mass. 1942)
Dunbar v. Patrick (Mass. 1937)
Brooks v. Bennett (Mass. 1931)
Horr v. Herrington (Okla. 1908)
Donohue v. Chase (Mass. 1881)
Roche v. Hampden Savings Bank (Mass. 1880)
Skilton v. Roberts (Mass. 1880)
Cook v. Basley (Mass. 1877)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Wells, J.

The principle of estoppel does not apply between these parties. If it did, the evidence offered by the defendant was not in contradiction of his deed or of his affidavit. Neither *99of those recites that the $1850 was received for the right to redeem from the first mortgage, or for the premises subject to the first mortgage. The plaintiff’s action is in affirmance of the proceedings of sale. The evidence offered and rejected was competent to show how much of the money received upon that sale ought in equity and good conscience to be paid over to the plaintiff, as having the right to redeem both mortgages. Abby v. Fuller, 8 Met. 36.

Exceptions sustained.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.