Norton v. Ladd
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was. a bill in equity, brought to the superior court for New London county. Douglass and Prentiss mortgaged to certain creditors, among whom were the plaintiffs and the defendants, certain personal property, to secure their respective debts. The debts of the mortgagees, 'not parties to the bill, had been previously paid, partly by the proceeds of the mortgaged property, and partly by funds derived from otW sources.
Read the full summary
This was. a bill in equity, brought to the superior court for New London county. Douglass and Prentiss mortgaged to certain creditors, among whom were the plaintiffs and the defendants, certain personal property, to secure their respective debts. The debts of the mortgagees, 'not parties to the bill, had been previously paid, partly by the proceeds of the mortgaged property, and partly by funds derived from otW sources. The bill prayed for a decree, requiring the latter to account with, and pay over to, the plaintiffs their respective proportions of mortgaged property, which, it was alleged,…
1Opinion of the CourtEllswokth, J.
From the motion it appears, that Doug*205lass and Prentice, of Lisbon, on the 9th day of August, 1849, being indebted to the plaintiffs and others, by a mortgage bill of sale of that date, mortgaged to them, to secure their respective debts, certain personal property, giving them therein power, in case of default of payment, to sell, and after deducting charges and expenses, to apply the avails in payment, and if there was not enough to pay in full, all were to be paid,pro rata. Norton, Converse & Co., the respondents, being co-mortgagees, took possession of a certain portion of said property, to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rhodes v. Little Falls Dairy Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Inhabitants of Peru & Dixfield v. BarrettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1905