Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 Me. 205

Gatchell v. Morse

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 12, 1889

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1889-01-12

<p> Mortgage. Possession. Evidence. Bond for support. </p> <p>Where an obligor gives a bond to the obligee to support him in the obligor’s house, not naming what house or where situated, and secures the performance of the bond by a mortgage In the usual form upon the obligor’s homestead, there is not a legal implication that the mortgagor shall retain possession of the mortgaged premises; nor is it admissible to show that there was a contemporaneous, verbal understanding, that the support should be received in the house on the mortgaged premises.</p>

Decided 1889-01-12

Peters, O. J.

¶1Emma J. Morse and Mathias M. Morse gave a bond obligating themselves to maintain Allen Gatchell, one of the demandants during Ms lifetime, “in the house of Emma J. and Matlfias M. Morse,” and secured their bond by a mortgage in usual form on the demanded premises.

¶2NotMng in the bond or mortgage implied that the mortgagors are to retain possession, in order to support the mortgagees on the premises. Mason v. Mason, 67 Maine, 546. The defendant (one only of the obligors appears to be sued) offered oral evidence to prove that, by the pirrase “house of Emma J., &c.” is meant a house on the place mortgaged. The evidence was rightly rejected. Even if the parties supposed that such would be the effect of the bond and mortgage, it would not be the legal interpretation. No one would be bound by such supposition. The mortgagors are not bound to remain on the premises. They might be there to-day, and elsewhere to-morrow. The mortgagees are to be a part of the *207household wherever that may reasonably be. If that was moved they would be.

¶3 Judgment for demandants.

Walton, Daneobth, Virgin, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.
/81/me/205 · .json · Public domain