Olmsted v. Hoyt
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises, and for an account of rents and profits. The bill stated, that on the 4th of October, 1831, Harvey Hickok, to secure two promissory notes given by him to Jonathan Camp and William J. Street, mortgaged the lands in question to them; that on the 5th of November, 1833, Camp and Street assigned these notes to Thaddeus Hoyt, accompanied with a quitclaim deed of all their interest in the premises ; that on the 4th…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises, and for an account of rents and profits. The bill stated, that on the 4th of October, 1831, Harvey Hickok, to secure two promissory notes given by him to Jonathan Camp and William J. Street, mortgaged the lands in question to them; that on the 5th of November, 1833, Camp and Street assigned these notes to Thaddeus Hoyt, accompanied with a quitclaim deed of all their interest in the premises ; that on the 4th of September, 1832, Hickock sold his interest in the premises to Elias M. Hurlbut, and at the same time, executed a…
1Opinion of the CourtChurch, J.
This case comes before us, as well upon a motion in error as upon a motion for new trial. Upon the questions raised by the motion for new trial, we suggest no opinion, inasmuch as we concur, unanimously, in the result, that for the second cause of error assigned in the motion in error, the judgment of the superior court must be reversed.
The material question of fact under consideration, by the committee in chancery, was, whether the deed from Harvey Hickok to E. M. Hurlbut, was fraudulent; the defendants, by their answer, averring the fraud, and the plaintiff denying it. To support the deed,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Matlock v. WheelerOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Smith v. VincentSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- Copp v. HardyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Perry v. DerosaConnecticut Superior Court · 1937