Bunce v. Wolcott
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises. ,. ,, ,,, „ , . ,, lhc case was as lollows. hururxer Berdan. jim., on the lGth of February 17(53, mortgaged the premises to David Ecekman and Jlbraiiam hymen, of the city of Mu'-Fork, to secure to them the payment of -128/. 1⅛. (id., Mw-Vork cur-miey, on the 20th of .March next ensuing.
Read the full summary
THIS was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises. ,. ,, ,,, „ , . ,, lhc case was as lollows. hururxer Berdan. jim., on the lGth of February 17(53, mortgaged the premises to David Ecekman and Jlbraiiam hymen, of the city of Mu'-Fork, to secure to them the payment of -128/. 1⅛. (id., Mw-Vork cur-miey, on the 20th of .March next ensuing. Benton remained in possession’.mill his death, which took ¡dace on the 9th of February 17 0-1. On the 251b of dlay 1764, Ruth Benton, o7 J ' the widow of the mortgagor, took letters of administration on his estate, and soon afterwards represented it…
1Opinion of the Court
Swist, -Ch. J.
Courts have gone great lengths in presuming grants, where it conduced to justice, and quieted men in their possessions.
Mere length of time less than what is prescribed by statute, and in eases where the statute operates, can never be a presumptive bar. Length of time, accompanied by circumstances, which render it probable a grant -was made, may be a presumptive bar. So length of time, unaccompanied by such circumstances, may be a bar where there is no statute of limitation, in analogy to statutes in similar cases. Where a statute limits a time, it is a peremptory bar, and may be…
2Cited by20 opinions
- McDonald v. HoveySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Jackson ex dem. Swartwout v. JohnsonNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Ruick v. TwarkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Townsend v. Estate of DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- McFarland v. StoneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.