North v. Crowell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Tkover for a horse. It appeared on the trial, that on the 23d day of January, A. D. 1835, one John A. Drew was the owner of the horse in question ; and on that day mortgaged him to the plaintiff, together with divers articles of household furniture.
Read the full summary
Tkover for a horse. It appeared on the trial, that on the 23d day of January, A. D. 1835, one John A. Drew was the owner of the horse in question ; and on that day mortgaged him to the plaintiff, together with divers articles of household furniture. The condition of the mortgage was as follows : “Provid- , ed that if I, my executors, &c., pay to the said North & Co., their heirs, &e., the sum of fifty dollars in sixty days from the date hereof, meaning and intending the legal claims and demands they have against me, then these presents shall be void.” The mortgage was recorded in the office…
1Opinion of the Court
tíiLCHRisT, J.
It is contended by the defendant that this action will not lie against the officer, until the plaintiff gives notice of his mortgage, and states his account, and the sheriff or creditor refuses to pay the demand, and discharge the lien. This doctrine is suggested by the court in the case of Miller vs. Baker, 20 Pick. 287. Sufficient notice of the mortgage was already given by the record in the town clerk’s *254office. But the question does not arise in this case. If the defendant had intended to rely on this position, it should have been taken at the trial, in order that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haven v. LowSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819
- Perkins v. ThompsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
3Cited by2 opinions
- Webb v. StoneSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851
- Haynes v. ThomSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854