Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Mass. 300

Hicks v. Bingham

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 15, 1814

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1814-09-15

In this case it appeared that one Silas Pepoon, on the 1st day of May, 1807, mortgaged the premises demanded in the plaintiff’s bill, together with another tract of land, to * the [ # 301 ]' respondent, upon condition to be void upon payment of five several promissory notes, made by the said Pepoon to the respondent; that the plaintiff in equity, by certain deeds of assignment, which were exhibited in the case, had acquired the right in equity which the said Pepoon had to…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1814-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 1929

13 state decisions

40181418201830184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Putnam, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2The only question made by the respondent upon the first issue is, whether she is bound to apply the two hundred dollars received of Willard towards the payment of the debt secured by the mortgage, or has a right to apply it towards the discharge of other debts due to her from Pepoon, the mortgagor, which were not included in the sum secured by the mortgage.

¶3And we are all of opinion that the respondent is bound to apply the consideration, which she received for a release of a part of the mortgaged premises, towards payment of the mortgage. It was received by her in consequence of the mortgage; and the price oi the land mortgaged, as well as the rent of it, received by the mort gagee, ought to be applied towards the extinguishment of the debt secured by the mortgage.

¶4Upon the second issue, we are of opinion that the respondent is. and has been, since her entry for condition broken, in legal con templation, in possession of the demanded premises.

¶5Judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff for possession of the premises demanded, and for his costs, (a)

¶6Dorsey vs. Gassaway, 2 Har. Johns. 412. — Gwinne & Ux vs. Whitaker Admr 1 Har. & Johns. 465.

/11/mass/300 · .json · Public domain