Root v. Collins
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a bill to compel contribution towards a mortgage covering - lands owned both by the orator and the defendant. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The .chancellor dismissed the bill, from which decree the orator appealed. „
1Opinion of the CourtPierpoint, J.
The pleadings and evidence in this case unquestionably call for the application of the rule, that when premises that are subject to a mortgage, are sold by the mortgagor in separate parcels to several purchasers, as between such purchasers the several parcels shall be charged with the burden of such mortgage, in the inverse order of the time of alienation. This rule was fullv considered in the case of Lyman v. Lyman & Briggs, 32 Vt. 79, and was then for the first time in this state judicially recognized as law It may now be regarded as the settled rule in this state. Indeed no question is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lyman v. LymanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
3Cited by4 opinions
- Deavitt v. JudevineSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- Neely v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Scott v. PatchinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
- Jamaica Savings Bank v. Howard'sSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906