Riddle v. George
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In Equity. The cause was sent to a referee, who reported, in substance, that on May 6, 1856, in pursuance of a prior agreement between Iliram Mace, James George and 1ns wife Nancy, and Joseph Kennard, Mace deeded a farm to Nancy lor $1,200, but not to hold to her sole and separate use, free from the interference and control of her husband.
Read the full summary
In Equity. The cause was sent to a referee, who reported, in substance, that on May 6, 1856, in pursuance of a prior agreement between Iliram Mace, James George and 1ns wife Nancy, and Joseph Kennard, Mace deeded a farm to Nancy lor $1,200, but not to hold to her sole and separate use, free from the interference and control of her husband. Kennard loaned Nancy and Janies $910 to pay to Mace towards the purchase-money, and took Nancy’s note, and a mortgage on the farm to secure its payment; and said Nancy gave to Mace her note for the balance, $290, which she secured by a mortgage on the farm.…
1Opinion of the Court
Bingham, J. I.
It is quite plain that it was the purpose of Kennard to foreclose his mortgage under the first mode named in s. 1, c. 1530, of the Laws of 1854, which provides for an entry into the mortgaged premises “ under process of law,” and holding the continued actual possession thereof for one year. Kennard did not enter under “ process of law,” but upon the voluntary surrender of the mortgagee. His possession was by consent, without process. And to have made a valid foreclosure, he should have published notice, as is required by the second mode named in said section. Hall v. Hall, 46 N.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State of Connecticut v. BradishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Dana v. NewhallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Shove v. DowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3Cited by1 opinion
- Belis v. BelisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931