Elphick v. Hoffman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage; brought to the Superior Court. Facts found by a committee; remonstrance against acceptance of report; remonstrance overruled and decree for the petitioner. (Hitchcock, J.) Motion in error by the respondent. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The petitioner sold to the respondent certain oyster grounds in the waters adjacent to the town of Greenwich, taking a mortgage on the same property as security for a portion of the purchase money. This suit is to foreclose that mortgage. The answer sets up three grounds of defence—warranty and a breach, fraud, and a total or partial failure of consideration, that is, that the deed from the petitioner to the respondent conveyed no title. The facts were found by a committee, judgment was( rendered for the petitioner, and a motion in error filed by the respondent.
There was a long remonstrance…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rowe v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
3Cited by5 opinions
- Slaymaker v. Westgate State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1987
- Schagun v. Scott Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Osborn v. WillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Chappell v. JardineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884
- Osborn v. WillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931