Hough v. Bailey
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Motion in error from a decree of the superior court (Pardee, /.) upon a bill of foreclosure. The general principles involved in the decision of the court will be sufficiently understood without a statement of the facts of the case, which would occupy much space.
1Opinion of the CourtHinhan, C. J.
It is well settled that the mere fact that a debt is barred at law by the statute of limitations does not constitute a defence to a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure it, or to an action of ejectment to recover possession of the mortgaged estate. Belknap v. Gleason, 11 Conn., 160; Higgins v. Scott, 2 Barn. & Adol., 413. In order to bar the mortgagee’s right of foreclosure, or a suit at law for the recovery of possession, the mortgagor must have been permitted to remain in possession of the premises for a period of fifteen years at least, without payment during that time of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Belknap v. GleasonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Raymond v. SellickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- Jarvis v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hughes v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Payson v. LamsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Weider v. OsbornOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Fisk v. StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Van Hoose v. BushSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.