Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Mass. 116

Tirrell v. Merrill

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 15, 1821

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1821-03-15

This was a bill in equity, brought to redeem a certain tenement heretofore mortgaged by one Peter Guss to J. T. Austin, conditioned to pay 350 dollars in one year, and 350 dollars in two years from 25th of July, 1806, the date of the mortgage. After the death of Guss, the plaintiff became seised of the equity of redemption by purchase from the administrator, on the 30th of January, 1818.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1821-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1934

1 district · 8 state decisions

20182118301840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Parker, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2We feel ourselves limited by the statute giving remedies in equity, to the cases provided for therein. This Court has no jurisdiction in equity, except what is expressly given by statute. We cannot entertain a bill of discovery, except in case of trust created by deed or will; and that jurisdiction is created only by the last statute respecting the equity powers of this Court (7).

¶3The bill before us, if sustained at all, must depend upon the statute of 1798, c. 77, entitled, “ An act in addition to an act entitled an act for giving remedies in equity.” A bill to redeem under *99that statute, must set forth a payment, or tender of payment of the sum due; and the averment must be supported by evidence of that fact. It is true the mortgagor, or his assignee, may be subjected to inconvenience, by reason of his not knowing the amount of rents and profits, or the expense of repairs. But the statute gives him no remedy. He must make the best calculation he can, and tender at his peril. If he should tender more than is due, and the mortgagee should receive it, possibly an action would lie to recover back the excess, as paid by compulsion; provided he calls on the mortgagee for an account, and he refuses to give one.

¶4* This case, it is hoped, will excite the attention of [ * 122 ] the legislature, who alone can remove inconveniences in existing laws. For justice seems to require that the mortgagee, or his assignee, should be holden to give an account of what is due, to enable the mortgagor to redeem, without the risk of losing what he shall tender beyond his debt.

¶5We cannot consider the objection waived by submitting to the inquiry by the auditor. For the plaintiff insisted that nothing was due; and if he had been right, he would have been entitled to recover without a tender. It was therefore necessary to ascertain the state of the account; but the exception to the want of tender was taken sufficiently early to entitle the respondent to avail himself of it (8).

¶6Bill dismissed without costs.

¶7Stat. 1817, c. 87.

¶8 [A bill may now be sustained, if there be an insufficient or no tender. Revised Statutes, e 107, § 19, 20.—Ed.]

/17/mass/116 · .json · Public domain