BiiJj in Equity, heard upon bill and answer. The material facts were, — June 30, 1883, one Wadleigh conveyed a farm in Sunapee to Carlos S. Bingham and Fred S. Hart, and for part of the purchase-money took a note signed by Bingham and Hart for $1,039, and a mortgage of the farm to secure its payment.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1885-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1959
4 state decisions
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.
¶1
Hart could not avoid his liability upon the note and mortgage without giving up the property conveyed to him.
Heath
v.
West,
28 N. H. 101;
Heath
v.
Stevens,
48 N. H. 251 ;
Hall
v.
Butterfield,
59 N. H. 354;
Bartlett
v.
Bailey,
59 N. H. 408. His quitclaim to the defendant of his interest in the farm was an essential part of his recission of the contract expressed by the note. and mortgage. Whether one half the mortgage debt was extinguished by the transaction is a question unnecessary to be determined, inasmuch as the defendant consents that the plaintiff may redeem her one half of the farm by paying one half of the mortgage debt. The recital in Hart’s quitclaim, that in consideration of it he is released from liability upon the mortgage note, had no legal effect. The contract was avoided, and Hart’s liability upon it ended by his refusal within a reasonable time after he became of age to be bound by it, and restoring the property. What would be the effect of a technical release of an
*420
infant from bis unrepudiated contract upon tbe liability of bis joint promissor, is a question which does not arise.
