Gore v. Jenness
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was assumpsit, and was submitted on the following statement of facts. The plaintiff on August 19, 1835, became the mortgagee of certain lots of land in Chester — upon which, in the winter of 1837 — 8, certain timber was cut under permits from the mortgagors — but without his knowledge or consent. The defendants furnished supplies to the person by whom the timber was cut and afterwards without a knowledge of the existence of the mortgage purchased the timber.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit, and was submitted on the following statement of facts. The plaintiff on August 19, 1835, became the mortgagee of certain lots of land in Chester — upon which, in the winter of 1837 — 8, certain timber was cut under permits from the mortgagors — but without his knowledge or consent. The defendants furnished supplies to the person by whom the timber was cut and afterwards without a knowledge of the existence of the mortgage purchased the timber. After the purchase by the defendant, the timber was seized by the directions of the plaintiff' — and subsequently an agreement was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Weston C. J.
According to the decisions in Massachusetts before the separation, and of this state since, cited for the plaintiffs, he is clearly entitled to judgment. The principles established by these decisions are necessary for the security of the mortgagee. It often happens, that the timber upon wild or unimproved land, constitutes its principal value. Unless it is protected for the mortgagee by adequate remedies, the value of his lien may be defeated or greatly impaired. The timber, standing and growing upon the land, is as much a part of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- J. J. Hockenjos Co. v. LurieSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Verner v. BetzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1889
- Goff v. McLainWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1900
- Jewett v. DringerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1878