Hunt v. Tyler
Hunt v. Tyler
Opinion of the Court
The following opinion of the court and substance of a decree, was pronounced by
This case has been heard upon the bill and answers, a recurrence to which shows the chief point of controversy to be, whether the mortgage deed of the land
The mortgage by Tyler to Hunt, of the Holbrook land, is made a part of the answer, and the condition is as follows: Provided, nevertheless, that if I the said Joseph, my heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid -to the said Arad Hunt, his heirsj executors, administrators or assigns, two certain notes of hand, this day given by me to said Arad Hunt, one note for $1500, the other for .$1828, and the interest annually; or else, in case of failure, shall surrender to said Arad, his heirs or assigns, my home farm, containing two hundred acres, without any suit or trouble, this day conveyed by me to said Arad, then this deed to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and effect.”
There is no time set at which Jie was to surrender; hence, it should have been done in a reasonable time, or when requested by the orator. In fact, the very idea of a surrender of possession by Tyler, implies that Hunt should be there by himself, or agent, to receive possession. The surrender in this case required also the delivering up to be cancelled, the writing which secured his equity of redemption. The conduct of the parties shows that neither of them attached much importance to the exact time of surrender. It does not appear, that ever Tyler was requested to surrender; but it does appear that he gave notice to Hunt in his life time, and was ever ready, &c. to surrender, and that he abandoned the home farm, and in ten months after the notes were payable, the orators took possession, and yet retain the same. Under such circumstances, equity will not warrant the.court in deciding, that the election to surrender is lost, by such a delay as appears. ^
But, according to the authorities cited, a court of equity should^ not extend the time for doing a collateral thing, where the opposite party is not in fault, unless they can decree that which will compensate the opposite party. It is urged, that this cannot be done, because the value cannot be ascertained in the present case. The bill states no fact of damage, no loss of sale, no diminution of value, after the notes were payable, till the orators took possession ; hence, no such damage or loss ought to be inferred. But the orators lost the use and occupation of the farm during that time, and for this they may be compensated, and for this the Holbrook farm should be holden as a pledge.
Therefore, to meet all the difficulties in the case, and do as equal justice as possible, the Court decree, that upon the defendant’s paying to the clerk of this court, for the benefit of the
If there is a failure of said defendants to perform this, then the whole mortgage money (deducting the interest during the time the orators possess the home farm) and the cost shall be paid on or before the second Monday of February, 1828, or the equity of redemption of both farms be foreclosed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Roswell Hunt and Jonathan Hunt, Adm'rs of Arad Hunt v. Joseph Tyler and William R. Shafter
- Status
- Published