Burnham v. Dorr
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. The opinion states the case. In the warranty deed to Walker, tbe grantor agreed to protect Mm against the lawful claims and demands of all persons. It is now proposed to show by parol, that the parties to that deed made a parol agreement contradicting or changing the deed. That cannot be done.
Read the full summary
On report. The opinion states the case. In the warranty deed to Walker, tbe grantor agreed to protect Mm against the lawful claims and demands of all persons. It is now proposed to show by parol, that the parties to that deed made a parol agreement contradicting or changing the deed. That cannot be done. Egery v. Woodard, 56 Maine, 45 ; Brown v. Thurston, 56 Maine, 126 ; Jones on Mortgages, § 848 : Loud v. Lane, 8 Met. 517; Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374. The payments made by Walker, were not an extinguishment of the mortgage pro tanto, because Walker didn’t intend it as such. The intent…
1Opinion of the CourtWabton, J.
This case is before the law court on report. Upon so much of the evidence reported as is legally admissible, the court is to render such judgment as the legal rights of the parties may require.
It is a real action. In support of his title the plaintiff relies upon a mortgage deed, originally given to Chas. J. Perry, and by him assigned to John .B. Redman, and by the latter to the plaintiff. The mortgage was given to secure throe notes amounting in the whole to the sum of sixteen hundred dollars. Two of the notes were paid by the mortgagor as they fell due, leaving-one for five hundred…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Bensieck v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Walker v. NeilSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- McFarland v. MelsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Hilton and Bush v. Northern Central Trust Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1933
- Miller v. KennedySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.