Lewis v. De Forest
Supreme Court of Connecticut
These were suits in chancery, brought to the superior . court, October term, 1847. The first two were brought to foreclose the defendants of their equity in certain mortgaged premises ; the other, by the Phoenix Bank against Lewis and others, claiming that the bank had an interest in the same mortgaged premises, and praying the aid of a court of equity to protect that interest.
Read the full summary
These were suits in chancery, brought to the superior . court, October term, 1847. The first two were brought to foreclose the defendants of their equity in certain mortgaged premises ; the other, by the Phoenix Bank against Lewis and others, claiming that the bank had an interest in the same mortgaged premises, and praying the aid of a court of equity to protect that interest. The bills, answers, cross-bills and supplemental bills, were referred to a committee, who made a report, embracing, among other matters, the following facts. On the 9th day of April, 1846, William De Forest and Henry…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The first question is, whether the mortgages of the real estate are valid as against the subsequent attaching creditors. Immediately after the execution of these mortgages, the property was attached and subsequently set off, upon executions, as the property of De Forest and Hine, to Johnson, Bushnell & Rand. Unless the property can be holden, by virtue of the mortgages, the title has become vested in the levying creditors.
The object, it is said, was, not to secure the payment of *442any existing debt, but to indemnify the mortgagee against a contingent liability. But that liability had been…
2Cited by8 opinions
- New Orleans, Jackson, & Great Northern Railroad v. HurstMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
- Goodman v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Green v. TurnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Bryant v. StephensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Clark v. HymanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.