Ex parte Dalby
District Court, D. Massachusetts
In July, 18G7, Griffiths lived and had his principal place of business in Boston, and had a factory in the adjoining city of Rox-bury, which has since been annexed to Boston.
Read the full summary
In July, 18G7, Griffiths lived and had his principal place of business in Boston, and had a factory in the adjoining city of Rox-bury, which has since been annexed to Boston. In that month he gave the petitioner Dalby a mortgage upon the fixtures and tools in his factory, which recited that Dalby had indorsed notes for him on a promise of security; and the condition was, that Griffiths, his executors, administrators, and assigns shall, at or before the expiration of nine months from the date of the mortgage, pay certain promissory notes, and save Daiby harmless from the payment of the same or…
1Opinion of the Court
LOWELL, District Judge.
The deed is obscure. What the “pendency of the deed” is, may well be a question. It can hardly mean the nine months, because that is merely the time limited for payment of -certain notes which purport to be described; and though only one is in fact described, the facts show that there were others then existing, to which the security was certainly intended to apply. After the nine months the deed would still be pending if there were a breach. The most favorable construction that I can give for the assignees is this, that so long as the mortgage remained a valid and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Haskell v. MerrillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Holmes v. WinchesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Brown v. BrabbMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Chattanooga Nat. Bank v. Rome Iron Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1900
- Dugan v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.