Brunt v. Brunt
New York Court of Chancery
On the eighteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, Elias Denman and Jane his wife and Letty Van Brunt joined in a mortgage of lands to the • complainant, Rutgert W. Van Brunt, to secure the payment of a simultaneous bond executed by the same parties, conditioned for six hundred and twenty-five dollars, with interest at six per cent, and payable one year after date.
Read the full summary
On the eighteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, Elias Denman and Jane his wife and Letty Van Brunt joined in a mortgage of lands to the • complainant, Rutgert W. Van Brunt, to secure the payment of a simultaneous bond executed by the same parties, conditioned for six hundred and twenty-five dollars, with interest at six per cent, and payable one year after date. The debt was owing by Elias Denman ; his wife joined with. him in the bond, as did also Letty Van Brunt as surety. Denman was seised of the mortgaged lands in right of his wife. The fee was in her, subject to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor :
From a perusal of the composition agreement and release, it would appear that no other sums than such as constituted the amount of one thousand and eighty-two dollars and twenty-five cents were intended to be released. It is limited in its terms to such debts, claims or demands as are spoken of in the recital; and yet again, these may have been all the debts owing by Elias Denman or which existed against his estate. I think the fair interpretation of the instrument is that all the debts and sums of money owing to the nineteen creditors were taken into account. Its…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Russell & Hall v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by4 opinions
- Corbett v. JoannesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Hoes v. Van HoesenNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
- Metcalf v. Morse Ironworks & Dry Dock Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1903
- Reiss v. Velleman & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1922