The decree of Judge Aldrich in this case was as follows :

The first question arising in this case is the validity of the note. After careful consideration of the evidence, I am satisfied that the alteration was an innocent transaction, under the mistaken notion that it could be done to secure further indulgence, and preserve the land mortgage. It vitiates the note, although no fraud was intended. But the mortgage executed to secure the debt has not been altered in any material particular, it describes the note accurately, the mortgage premises intended to secure the same, and as there was no fraud in the alterations; it may be resorted to, to establish the indebtedness it was intended to secure.

The next question is, are the defendants entitled to the two hundred dollar credit ? I do not think so. It is unreasonable to suppose that two men of mature age, accustomed to business, should, after conference as to what was due, employ a merchant to make calculations, draw a note and mortgage for nine hundred dollars, and neglect to give a credit of two hundred dollars on the very debt intended to be secured. The two hundred dollar receipt is of older date than the sealed note and mortgage. That credit cannot be allowed.

The other question in the case, as to the dower, is easily disposed of. The widow cannot get the benefit of the mortgage and her dower also.

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that it be referred to the master, or, if there be no master, to the clerk of the court as special referee, to enquire and report the amount due on the mortgage, according to the principles herein announced. Let a decretal order be prepared, confirming the said report foreclosing the mortgage and forwarded to me for signature.

The exceptions to this decree were as follows :

1. Because it decides that the mortgage has not been altered in any material particular.

2. Because it decides that the mortgage as altered may be resorted to, to establish the indebtedness it was intended to secure, when the only indebtedness it was intended to secure was a sealed note, accurately described in the mortgage, which - sealed note is adjudged by the decree to have been vitiated and made void by alterations therein.

3. Because it did not hold that the alterations in the sealed 'note and mortgage to secure its payment were constructively fraudulent as to the minors and other defendants not knowing of it, and therefore void as to them.

’ 4. Because it disallows the credit of $200.00 claimed by defendants and acknowledged as just by the plaintiff intestate in his life-time.

5. Because it decides that the widow F. J. B. Blake’s right to dower is contingent upon her renouncing her rights under the mortgages she holds.

6. Because it does not decide that F. J. B. Blake is entitled unconditionally to dower in the premises.

7. Because the decree does not decide that the alterations made vitiated and made void the whole claim set up by plaintiff June 13, 1887.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress