Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 U.S. 132

Stroud v. Lockart

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided *DECEMBER TERM, 1797.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1797-12

Scire facias on a mortgage. The mortgage had not been recorded, conformable to the act of assembly ; and Lockart had purchased the premises. But, on the trial, the plaintiff proved, that Lockart knew of the existence of the mortgage, at the time of his purchase, and said he would have to pay it, although it was not then recorded.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1926

4 state decisions

Relies on Levinz v. Will

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1797-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mortgage.

¶2If the purchaser of property knows, at the time of his purchase, of the existence of a mortgage, which has not been recorded according to the act of assembly, the premises will be bound by the mortgage.(a)

¶3Scire facias on a mortgage. The mortgage had not been recorded, conformable to the act of assembly ; and Lockart had purchased the premises. But, on the trial, the plaintiff proved, that Lockart knew of the existence of the mortgage, at the time of his purchase, and said he would have to pay it, although it was not then recorded.

¶5By the Court.

¶6— The case is too plain for controversy. The plaintiff must have a verdict; and all the trouble of the jury will be to calculate the interest.

¶7Verdict for the plaintiff.

/4/us/132 · .json · Public domain