Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

GRAVES v. ROGERS

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Sullivan.
Dec 1, 1879
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
Attorney(S)

Cushing and Parker, for the defendant. February 9, 1878, Bradford accepted Roundy's deed, and thereupon, by the terms of that deed, Roundy's note was paid and the mortgage discharged. The property became absolutely Bradford's, and March 4, 1878, the defendant's execution was levied upon it. The mortgage and note were sold by Bradford to Graves on the 14th of the same February. Up to that time Graves had no interest, equitable or otherwise. On the 9th of February, when the deed was accepted by Bradford, there were no interests and no equities to prevent the operation of that deed by virtue of the contract contained in it as a perfect satisfaction and payment of the note and discharge of the mortgage. The note was paid, and the mortgage was rendered void. Benson v. Tilton, 58 N.H. 137; Bowman v. Manter, 33 N.H. 530. On the 9th of February, 1878, the land was absolutely the property of Bradford. The endorsement of the note without recourse, and the delivery of the note and mortgage to Graves five days afterwards, did not revive them, nor transfer the title to the land to Graves. Bradford could not divest himself of the title so as to defeat a subsequent attaching creditor in any other way than by deed duly executed and recorded. Burke and Colby, for the plaintiff.

JUDGES

CLARK, J.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

The assignee of a mortgage, having purchased the mortgaged premises and assumed the payment of the mortgage debt, afterwards representing the mortgage as valid and subsisting, and transferring it as such to a purchaser in good faith without notice of any defect, is estopped as against such purchaser from showing or insisting upon the fact of the payment of the mortgage debt, or claiming that the mortgage title has merged in the fee.

Such estoppel extends to a levying creditor of such purchaser of the mortgaged premises, claiming to hold the same under a levy made subsequent to the transfer of the mortgage.

CLARK, J.

"A purchaser of land subject to a mortgage, having paid the mortgage notes and afterwards obtained a loan upon them by representations leading to the belief that the mortgage was still a subsisting lien, is estopped from showing and insisting upon the fact of the payment of the notes. It would be a fraud on his part thus to contradict a statement to the injury of another who had been influenced to act upon the statement as true." Jones Mort., s. 947; International Bank v. Bowen, 80 Ill. 541; Powell v. Smith, 30 Mich. 451. It appears that the plaintiff purchased the Roundy mortgage of Bradford in good faith, before the defendant commenced his levy upon the land. As against the plaintiff, Bradford is estopped to deny the validity of the mortgage. Estoppels are binding upon parties and privies. The defendant, claiming title to the demanded premises under Bradford by virtue of the levy of his execution against him, is a privy in estate with him; and the levy being subsequent to the sale and assignment of the mortgage by Bradford to the plaintiff, the defendant is bound by the estoppel upon Bradford, and cannot question the validity of the plaintiff's mortgage. Parker v. Crittenden, 37 Conn. 148. The reasoning of the court in Benson v. Tilton, 58 N.H. 137, and Bowman v. Manter, 33 N.H. 530, is not applicable to the facts in this case, because in those cases there was no concealment of facts and no estoppel.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

DOE, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x