Lacey v. Tomlinson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
error. THIS was a bill in chancery, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs, praying for liberty to redeem certain lands.
Read the full summary
error. THIS was a bill in chancery, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs, praying for liberty to redeem certain lands. It was stated in the'biil, that on the 8th day of October, 1807, Richard Hubbell was seised in fee, of about 22 acres of land in the town of Fairfield, being the land in question ; and on the same day, mortgaged the land to Tomlinson, to secure the payment of 487 dollars, 33 cents ; that Hubbell, on the 17th day of March, 1808, mortgaged the same land to Eli Smith, to secure the payment of 308 dollars, 23 cents ; that Tomlinson, on the 7th day of November,…
1Opinion of the CourtSwift, J.
The question in this case, is, whether a mortgagee, by releasing all right and interest in the mortgaged premises, discharges a lien upon land, acquired by a previous attachment ?
No right can pass by a release, but what exists at the *80time of the release made. Co. Lit. 265. a. An attaching creditor acquires no title, right or interest in lands, by force oí an attachment. The attachment has no effect, but to take the land into the custody of the law, to secure it against the alienation of the debtor, and the attachment of other creditors, and to hold it to be levied upon by an execution, when…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. PendellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
- Camp v. BatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- Chandler v. DyerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864