Tarbell v. Durant
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a suit in chancery, and was heard at the December Term, 1887, on bill, answer and agreed statement of facts. Royce, Chancellor, decreed, pro forma, that the bill be-dismissed .with costs. From this decree the orator appealed-"The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
This was a suit in chancery, and was heard at the December Term, 1887, on bill, answer and agreed statement of facts. Royce, Chancellor, decreed, pro forma, that the bill be-dismissed .with costs. From this decree the orator appealed-"The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. When Durant'set off -or sold the premises in question as the-property of Tarbell,' he was' bound to respect the rights of all encumbrancers, and if he proceeded in violation of the rights of any one, he took nothing by his levy. If the orator had any rights there which Durant did not regard, those rights…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tart, J.
In March, 1881, Daniel Tarbell owned certain land 'in Royalton, of which Ephraim Thayer was mortgagee by absolute deed. In May, 1881, a part of the land was sold to one Day, who mortgaged it to Thayer, under an arrangement that -the latter should hold the note secured by the mortgage, and the mortgage, in place of 'the land so sold. Thayer therefore held :as security for his debt against'Daniel Tarbell, the land remaining unsold and the Day note. In August, 1883, Durant attached the land remaining unsold as the property of Daniel Tarbell,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lyman v. LymanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Downer v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Chandler v. DyerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wilder's v. WilderSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903