Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Vt. 215

Jeffers v. Pease

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 3, 1902

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1902-06-03

Trover for certain trees cut on land mortgaged to the plaintiff. Plea, the general issue. Heard on a referee’s report and the defendants’ motion to recommit the same, at the October Term, 1901, Essex County, Taft, C. J., presiding. Motion denied and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants excepted.

Relies on Allen v. Gates · Langdon v. Paul · Lull v. Matthews

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-06-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1970

1 district · 5 state decisions

1019021910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Watson, J.

¶1The overruling of the motion to recommit the report was a matter of discretion, and not revisable in this court. Wilkinson’s Admr. v. Wilkinson, 61 Vt. 409, 17 Atl. 795.

¶2The record of the mortgage was constructive notice to the defendants that the land on which the logs purchased by them were cut, was encumbered by such a mortgage to secure the payment óf a note to the plaintiff, of the same date as the mortgage and for $156.51 with interest annually. The defendants were thereby put upon inquiry, and they were chargeable with *218knowledge that the note and mortgage were overdue; for inquiry of the plaintiff would have disclosed that fact. Allen v. Gates, 73 Vt. 222, 50 Atl. 1092.

¶3The defendants manufactured the logs into lumber and converted it to their own use. That the mortgagee may maintain trover for wood or timber cut upon the mortgaged premises after condition broken, and converted, is well settled. Langdon v. Paul, 22 Vt. 205; Morey v. McGuire, 4 Vt. 327; Lull v. Matthews, 19 Vt. 322; Wright v. Lake, 30 Vt. 206.

¶4The plaintiff told the mortgagors, Stevens and Gallup, that he would account to them for the lumber taken off by Wyman ; but there was nothing said how or on what he would so account. The mortgagors gave no directions concerning the application. The plaintiff then held their unsecured note for $35.88, and he indorsed thereon $25, which he thought to be the value of the Wyman lumber. The referee found the value to be $40.85. After deducting therefrom the $25, the balance was applied by the County Court in full payment of the small note, and the rest upon the note secured by the mortgage. The small note represented a debt which, accrued earlier than that evidenced by the mortgage note. The plaintiff had a right to apply the $25 as he did, — Hicks’ Estate v. Blanchard, 60 Vt. 673, 15 Atl. 401, — and the application made by the court was i-n accordance with the -long settled rule stated in Atkins v. Atkins, 71 Vt. 422, 45 Atl. 1037.

¶5This being decisive of the case, there is no necessity for considering the other questions argued.

¶6■ Judgment affirmed.

/74/vt/215 · .json · Public domain