Eddy v. Kenney
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from Second District, Missoula County. Prior to act of February 19, 1881, the law did not require payment of mortgage before levy of attachment. See R. S. p. 595. At time of levy plaintiffs’ mortgage had not matured, and Morrison and Riggs had an attachable interest. Goulet v. Asseler, 22 N. Y. 227; Hathaway v. Brayman, 42 N. Y. 322; Jones on Chat. Mort. 556-561; Herman on Chat.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Second District, Missoula County. Prior to act of February 19, 1881, the law did not require payment of mortgage before levy of attachment. See R. S. p. 595. At time of levy plaintiffs’ mortgage had not matured, and Morrison and Riggs had an attachable interest. Goulet v. Asseler, 22 N. Y. 227; Hathaway v. Brayman, 42 N. Y. 322; Jones on Chat. Mort. 556-561; Herman on Chat. Mort. pp. 377-389. The answer denies conversion and shows only substitution of defendants to rights of Morrison and Riggs. No demand was made on defendants for a return. The complaint alleges facts that in law…
1Opinion of the CourtWade, C. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the respondents, rendered on the pleadings. The complaint alleges that on the 12th day of January, 1881, Morrison and Eiggs were indebted to the respondents in the sum of $885.10, upon a certain promissory note executed by them on that day, payable to the order of the respondents, on or before the 1st day of January, 1882, together with interest thereon at the rate of two per cent, per month from the 1st day of March, 1881, until paid; that to secure the payment of said note according to the tenor thereof, said Morrison and Eiggs executed to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Scott v. WaggonerMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- Reynolds v. FitzpatrickMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- Duckett v. BiggsMontana Supreme Court · 1920
- Vose v. WhitneyMontana Supreme Court · 1888