Tisdale v. John H. Pray Sons Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in Equity, praying for the cancellation of certain attachments made by the defendants upon personal property mortgaged by the plaintiffs Emma E. and John W. Hobart to the plaintiff Tisdale. Trial at the September term, 1904, of the superior court before Stone, J., who dismissed the bill subject to the plaintiffs’ ■exception.
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity, praying for the cancellation of certain attachments made by the defendants upon personal property mortgaged by the plaintiffs Emma E. and John W. Hobart to the plaintiff Tisdale. Trial at the September term, 1904, of the superior court before Stone, J., who dismissed the bill subject to the plaintiffs’ ■exception. The Hobarts, who reside in Brookline, Massachusetts, owned ■certain personal property situated in Bollinsford, and on March 20, 1903, executed the mortgage in question, which purported to secure a note for $1,600. At the time of signing the note and mortgage nothing…
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
The affidavit contained in the mortgage, if otherwise sufficient, was not signed and sworn to by the mortgagee. The statute requires that the mortgagee as well as the mortgagor shall take and subscribe to the oath. P. S., c. 140, s. 6. This must be done to entitle a mortgage of personal property to registration. The unauthorized registration of such an instrument is-not constructive notice of its existence. Lovell v. Osgood, 60 N. H. 71. The defendants’ attachments having been made while the-mortgaged property was in the possession of the mortgagors, and without knowledge, actual or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lovell v. OsgoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Holmgren v. Keene Oil Co.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1935