Wilson v. Hooper
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was trespass, for breaking and entering the plain-» tiff’s close, being a certain farm in Johnson. The defendants pleaded not guilty, separately. Trial by jury.
Read the full summary
This was trespass, for breaking and entering the plain-» tiff’s close, being a certain farm in Johnson. The defendants pleaded not guilty, separately. Trial by jury. On the trial in the county court, the plaintiff read in evidence a deed of the farm in question, from Jotham Wilson to him, the plaintiff, executed October 4th, 1837, and a general bill of sale from said Jotham to the plaintiff, of the stock and personal property on said farm, including the crops harvested and unharvested, dated October 5th, 1837, and gave evidence tending to show that possession of said farm, personal properly,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
The mortgagor, even after condition broken, is still the owner of the land, subject to the right of the mortgagee to enter. The mortgagor is tenant to the mortgagee. There has been much discussion as to which class of tenancy this belonged, but all agree he is tenant, and perhaps it may as well be said he is tenant by mortgage ; not strictly tenant at will or by sufferance. By our statute, the mortgagor has the right of possession until condition broken. In New York it is holden that the mortgagor has a right of entry, but can assert it…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Tallman v. ElyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
- White v. RittenmyerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Hastings v. PerrySupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Fuller v. EddySupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.