Belknap v. Wendell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This cause is a review of the action reported in 1 Foster’s Rep. 175, and it was tried upon the same pleadings. The question at the trial was whether the mortgage from John Mugridge & Co. was valid against his creditors. There was evidence tending to show that the notes were given wholly for a debt to their full amount, then due from Mugridge to the mortgagees, Belknap, Hale and Jones.
Read the full summary
This cause is a review of the action reported in 1 Foster’s Rep. 175, and it was tried upon the same pleadings. The question at the trial was whether the mortgage from John Mugridge & Co. was valid against his creditors. There was evidence tending to show that the notes were given wholly for a debt to their full amount, then due from Mugridge to the mortgagees, Belknap, Hale and Jones. There was also evidence tending to show that the notes were given partly for a debt and partly on account of liabilities which the company were under for him, upon certain verbal and written orders ; and there…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
The instructions of the court below seem to us correct. By the express provisions of the Revised Statutes, “ No mortgage [of personal property] shall be valid against any person except the mortgager, his executors and administrators, unless possession is delivered, or the mortgage is sworn to and recorded in the manner herein prescribed.” Rev. Stat. ch. 132, § 7; Comp. Stat. 294. By section 3 of the same chapter, the form of the oath, in case of a debt, is prescribed, and by-section 4 it is provided that “if such mortgage is given to indemnify the mortgagee against any liability assumed, or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Haseltine v. GuildSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840