Martin v. Bowker
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal from the court of chancery. The bill was brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage, executed December 9, 1820; and the subpoena was dated November 21, 1844. The defendant answered, alleging that he had made various payments upon the mortgage notes each year from 1827 to 1831- inclusive, and also claims .the benefit of the presumption arising from lapse of time.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the court of chancery. The bill was brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage, executed December 9, 1820; and the subpoena was dated November 21, 1844. The defendant answered, alleging that he had made various payments upon the mortgage notes each year from 1827 to 1831- inclusive, and also claims .the benefit of the presumption arising from lapse of time. The ¡answer was traversed, and testimony was taken; the substance of ...which is sufficiently detailed in the opinion of the court. It was .referred to a master to ascertain the sum due in equity, — which he reported was $98,58;…
1Opinion of the Court
*527The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kellogg, J.
This was a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The defendant, in his answer, admits the execution of the mortgage deed and notes, but .insists that he made sundry payments upon the notes. The case was referred to a master, who reported the sum due in equity; to which there were no exceptions. The sum thus reported must, therefore, be considered the sum due upon the mortgage securities, and upon which no question can now arise.
But the defendant, in his answer, insists upon the statute of limitations as a bar to this suit; and that is the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Fisk v. StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Frye v. HubbellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Hollister v. YorkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
- Crahan v. Town of ChittendenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Graves v. StoneWashington Supreme Court · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.