Cate v. Cate
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Other facts are stated in the opinion. It was ordered that the bill be dismissed. To the foregoing findings the plaintiffs excepted as follows: 1. To the ruling that the Tall’ant bill in equity did not have the effect of staying or suspending the foreclosure' of the Smith mortgage. 2. To the finding that at the time when Hiram Cate executed his warranty deed to Charles H. Cate and the defendants, he, the said Hiram Cate, had no right, title or interest in the premises, and…
Read the full summary
Other facts are stated in the opinion. It was ordered that the bill be dismissed. To the foregoing findings the plaintiffs excepted as follows: 1. To the ruling that the Tall’ant bill in equity did not have the effect of staying or suspending the foreclosure' of the Smith mortgage. 2. To the finding that at the time when Hiram Cate executed his warranty deed to Charles H. Cate and the defendants, he, the said Hiram Cate, had no right, title or interest in the premises, and that said deed, therefore, vested no title in Charles H. Cate under whom the plaintiffs claim. 3. To the finding that the…
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
The claim that the Tallant bill in equity had the effect of staying the foreclosure of the Smith mortgage is not well founded. The prayer of the bill was that the plaintiff be subrogated to the rights of Smith as foreclosing mortgagee. But whatever its object, or whatever effect it might have had, if pursued to a final decree, it comes to nothing for the suit was abandoned. No authority has been cited or found to sustain the proposition that such a proceeding has any effect upon the completion or validity of the foreclosure.
The exceptions to the finding that Hiram had no title in 1883, and to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Frye v. HubbellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Boynton v. HodgdonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Bartlett v. SanbornSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Largey v. TaylorSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
- Ray v. ScriptureSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892