Console v. Torchinsky
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Sdit to foreclose a mortgage of real estate, brought to and tried by the City Court of Hartford, Bullard, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by Samuel and Abraham Torchinsky, two of the defendants. ■ The mortgage note in suit was payable in instalments, and it provided that upon failure to make any payment of principal or interest for thirty days after the same became due and payable, the whole amount of the note then remaining unpaid should…
Read the full summary
Sdit to foreclose a mortgage of real estate, brought to and tried by the City Court of Hartford, Bullard, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by Samuel and Abraham Torchinsky, two of the defendants. ■ The mortgage note in suit was payable in instalments, and it provided that upon failure to make any payment of principal or interest for thirty days after the same became due and payable, the whole amount of the note then remaining unpaid should become due and payable at the option of the holder. On June 2d, 1920, an interest payment of $144 became due and payable…
1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.
It is true, as alleged in the complaint, that at the date of the writ the interest payment due June 2d, 1920, was still due and unpaid though more than thirty days had elapsed since it became due and payable. Thereupon, by the terms of the mortgage note, the entire amount of the note then remaining unpaid became due and payable at the option of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff exercised his option by bringing this foreclosure suit, without first making demand for the payment of the overdue interest. The written contract does not require the plaintiff to make demand for overdue interest before…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Garland v. GainesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901
- Buell v. ChapinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Bridgeport Savings Bank v. EldredgeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1859
- Campbell v. Supreme Lodge Knights of PythiasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Adams v. RutherfordOregon Supreme Court · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Petterson v. WeinstockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. ColeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- MacKey v. DobruckiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.