Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

117 Mass. 471

Taft v. Stetson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1875-05-07

Bill m equity to redeem land from a mortgage. The case was referred to a master, whose report, so far as material to the questions presented to this court, was as follows : On June 11, 1868, Bradford Stetson made a mortgage of the real estate, described in the plaintiff’s bill, to the defendant, his father. The wife did not join in the mortgage in release of her right of dower and homestead.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1913

3 state decisions

Relies on Morris v. French

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-05-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ames, J.

¶1The steam-engine, with the boiler and its appliances, was furnished and set up upon the premises by the defendant, who at the time had no title in the estate. The agree ment between him and the owner was, that these additions to the premises should continue to belong to him, with the right to remove them whenever he saw fit. They were, therefore, personal property; Howard v. Fessenden, 14 Allen, 124; Morris v. French, 106 Mass. 326; Hartwell v. Kelly, ante, 235 ; and never became the property of the mortgagor, and of course did not pass by and were not included in the mortgage. They were rightfully sold by the defendant as his own property, and there is no reason why he should be held accountable to this plaintiff for the proceeds of the sale.

¶2With regard to the rent of the house, it does not appear that -any was collected by the defendant, or that any was left uncollected by his fault or neglect. The house was occupied under a claim of right, adversely to the defendant. There having been no release of the homestead, the occupation of the house by the mortgagor and his family was rightful. Silloway v. Brown, 12 Allen, 30. Decree affirmed.

/117/mass/471 · .json · Public domain