Spencer v. Waterman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill in Equity ; brought to the Superior Court and. heard before Minor, J. The petition alleged that the respondent Waterman, on the 4th of April, 1866, mortgaged to James Jennings', another of the respondents, a piece of land in the town of Danbury of which he was the owner in fee, containing half an acre with buildings thereon, to secure a debt of $250; that the petitioner on the 29th of August, 1868, levied an execution which lie held against Waterman on the equity of…
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity ; brought to the Superior Court and. heard before Minor, J. The petition alleged that the respondent Waterman, on the 4th of April, 1866, mortgaged to James Jennings', another of the respondents, a piece of land in the town of Danbury of which he was the owner in fee, containing half an acre with buildings thereon, to secure a debt of $250; that the petitioner on the 29th of August, 1868, levied an execution which lie held against Waterman on the equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises and had an undivided portion of the same set off to him according to law, the whole…
1Opinion of the CourtPark, J.
We think there is manifest error in the judgment of the Superior Court.
The petitioner by the levy of his execution took only the interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged premises so far *344as his execution covers the mortgaged property, and therefore the case stands precisely as it would have stood if this controversy was between the mortgagor and the mortgagee. We then have the novel proceeding of a party standing in the place of' a mortgagor, bringing a petition to divide or sell the mortgaged premises, against the will of the mortgagee, and contrary to the express stipulations of his deed.
It…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. OlmstedSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882
- Town of Voluntown v. RytmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- New Haven Bank N. B. A. v. JacksonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- American Wheel Co. v. Scofield Buggy Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1891