Legal Opinion

Koppinger v. O'Donnell

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided January 26, 1889PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Bill in Equity in tbe nature of interpleader, and for an account, and to redeem. On demurrer to the bill.

1Opinion of the CourtDurfee, C. J.

The case set forth in the bill is as follows: The complainant, being seized on March 22, A. D. 1876, of a lot of land in Cranston, mortgaged it to William Hartly to secure a note for $300, given by her husband to said Hartly. June 26, 1878, Hartly sold the mortgage and note to the defendant, Hugh O’Donnell, for a valuable consideration paid by said Hugh, but transferred the mortgage to the defendant, Catherine O’Donnell, wife of said Hugh. On December 7, 1876, the complainant mortgaged said lot to secure a note for $200 given by her husband to said Hugh for money lent to him by said Hugh, but…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bedell v. HoffmanNew York Court of Chancery · 1830

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Maxim v. ShotwellMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  2. United Fuel Gas Co. v. CaldwellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Foljahn v. WienerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API