In re the Mortgage of Agostini
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Rodney, j.,
delivering the opinion of the Court:
Because a Court is usually desirous of confining itself within its clear jurisdiction such question will be first considered.
*353It is quite obvious that when a mortgagor is entitled to repay a mortgage loan obtained by him, and has so repaid it in full as to both principal and interest, that he is entitled either to have the mortgage marked as satisfied upon the record or to have such other steps taken as will remove the lien of the mortgage. It is unnecessary to consider what remedy originally existed in the mortgagor in such cases, for the matter…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kortright v. . CadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Tuthill v. . MorrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Hilmes v. MoonWashington Supreme Court · 1932
- Crumbly v. BardonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Malsberger v. ParsonsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bailey v. BlodgettSuperior Court of Delaware · 1955
- Promenade Towers Mutual Housing Corp. v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Promenade Towers Mutual Housing Corp.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Westminster Investing Corporation v. The Equitable Assurance Society of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Agostini v. Colonial Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1944
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.