Covell v. Dolloff
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit. In security for the debt due to the plaintiffs, one Jesse Dolloff; a brother of the defendant, had mortgaged to them an undivided part of a store, standing upon land of a third person. The debt was payable on demand. In the mortgage, no time was limited for the payment. This action was commenced on the 5th of December, 1848, and the plaintiffs took possession of the store, under the mortgage, on the 19th of the same month.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. In security for the debt due to the plaintiffs, one Jesse Dolloff; a brother of the defendant, had mortgaged to them an undivided part of a store, standing upon land of a third person. The debt was payable on demand. In the mortgage, no time was limited for the payment. This action was commenced on the 5th of December, 1848, and the plaintiffs took possession of the store, under the mortgage, on the 19th of the same month. And on the 21st, the store was consumed by fire, without the fault of the plaintiffs or of the defendant. The defendant claims to have the value of the store…
1Opinion of the CourtHoward, J.
The plaintiffs, as creditors of the defendant, *106took a mortgage of personal property, being “ parts of a building,” from Jesse Dolloff, to secure the payment of the debt. The mortgage was to be void upon the payment of the debt by the defendant, or by the mortgager.
The indebtment of the defendant continuing, this suit was commenced on December 5, 1848; on the 19th of the same month, the plaintiffs took possession of the property mortgaged, for condition broken, and on the 21st, two days afterward, “ the building was totally destroyed by a fire which originated in, and was communicated from,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hollenberg Music Co. v. BarronSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911