Devereaux v. Fairbanks
Supreme Court of Vermont
[In Chancery.] Petition for foreclosure. The petition alleged that on September 16, 1850, Morris C. Fairbanks, one of the petitionees, duly executed a mortgage deed of certain premises in Woodstock to Lyman Mower, conditioned for the payment of the purchase-money thereof specified in nine promissory notes for $100 each, payable respectively in two, three, &c., years from April 1,1851; that the last three of said notes had never been paid ; that the petitioners, having…
Read the full summary
[In Chancery.] Petition for foreclosure. The petition alleged that on September 16, 1850, Morris C. Fairbanks, one of the petitionees, duly executed a mortgage deed of certain premises in Woodstock to Lyman Mower, conditioned for the payment of the purchase-money thereof specified in nine promissory notes for $100 each, payable respectively in two, three, &c., years from April 1,1851; that the last three of said notes had never been paid ; that the petitioners, having subsequent mortgages and attachments on the premises, paid Mower the sum due on his mortgage, whereupon, on April 14, 1875,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Powers, J.
The Mower mortgage described in the petition was executed before the Homestead Act took effect. As against such mortgages, no homestead exemption can exist.
The petitioners, as attaching creditors and mortgagees of the premises encumbered by the Mower mortgage and subject to the homestead right of the defendant, have paid the Mower mortgage, and taken a transfer of it and the debt secured by it to themselves, and now claim to enforce the full amount of the debt against the homestead.
As attaching creditors, they could not reach that parcel of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Sligo Iron Store Co. v. MasonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Gordon v. DeavittSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910