Legal Opinion

Armille v. Lovett

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 27, 1956No. 4478PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.

The first question presented by this case, which has not heretofore been decided, is whether notice must be given to subsequent attaching creditors in a power of sale foreclosure proceeding. The defendants contend that this is required under RSA 479:25 II: “ Notice to mortgagor. A copy of said notice shall be served on the mortgagor or his representative in interest, or sent by registered mail addressed to him or such representative at his last known address, or to such person and address as may be agreed upon in said mortgage, at least twenty-one days before said sale.” (Emphasis supplied).…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Scott v. PaisleySupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Taylor v. WeingartnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  3. Watkins v. BoothSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
  4. Clore v. GrahamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Zeoli v. RIHT Mortgage Corp.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1993
  2. S & G Investment Inc. v. Home Federal Savings and Loan AssociationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
  3. Ostrow v. HigginsAlaska Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Gaspin v. BrowningCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
  5. Pappalardo v. Bank of BostonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API