Crooker v. Crooker
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions. Petition eor partition. The respondents claimed under two mortgages and the notes secured thereby, more than twenty years old. There was no evidence that the mortgagees were ever in possession of the premises for more than twenty years after the notes became due, they having been held in dower by one Hannah Crooker, under a title superior to the mortgage.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions. Petition eor partition. The respondents claimed under two mortgages and the notes secured thereby, more than twenty years old. There was no evidence that the mortgagees were ever in possession of the premises for more than twenty years after the notes became due, they having been held in dower by one Hannah Crooker, under a title superior to the mortgage. The petitioners claimed that the notes had been paid; and the presiding Judge, Davis, instructed the jury that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to satisfy them of that fact; and it was for the jury to determine upon…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Cutting, J.
It has been well settled, that, notwithstanding the production of a mortgage and notes secured thereby by the mortgagee, after the lapse of twenty years from the *417time of payment and no possession taken or foreclosure attempted, such continued possession by the mortgager raises the legal presumption of payment, which presumption casts the burden of proof on the party whose duty it is to overcome it. Joy v. Adams, 26 Maine, 330; Howland v. Shurtliff, 2 Met., 26.
Had the case at bar been similar to those cited, the ruling in relation to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Champ v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sard v. SardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Holway v. SanbornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Marshall v. SarafinPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1942
- Marshall v. SarafinConnecticut Superior Court · 1942