Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

MEAD against YORK.

GRIDLEY, J. delivered the opinion of the court.

The principle of this case is entirely covered by the doctrine established in Truscott v. King, decided in this court at the present term. It appears that the original mortgage was long since paid up and extinguished, and though it is probable that the defendant relied on the assignment of the mortgage to him as security for such indorsements as he should make for the mortgagor; I do not find evidence of any explicit agreement between him and the mortgagor, Smith, that, after it was satisfied, it should be revived, and stand as security for such indorsements. And if there was evidence of such an agreement, it would not have the effect to revive the mortgage under the decision in Truscott v. King. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Ante, p. 147.

Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MEAD v. YORK
(Jul 1, 1852)