TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

New England Wiring & Construction Co. v. Farmington Electric Light & Power Co.

New England Wiring and Construction Company. v. Farmington Electric Light and Power Company

New England Wiring & Constr. Co. v. Farmington Elec. Light & Power Co., 24 A. 848 (Me. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 4, 1892
Judges
Emery, Foster, Hasicell, Peters, Virgin, Walton
Citations
24 A. 84884 Me. 2841892 Me. LEXIS 84
Headnotes
Meal Action. Meeds. Delivery. Evidence. Presumption. M. 8., c, 81, § § 60, 61. The rule, which admits as evidence in real actions office copies of deeds when the party claiming under them is not the immediate grantee therein, applies to mortgages as well as to absolute deeds. When an office copy of a mortgage is so admitted, which purports to have been executed for a corporation by its agent, due execution and delivery of such morgage are to be presumed until something appears to show the contrary.
Summary
On EXCEPTIONS. This was a real action in which the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to rulings, and admission of evidence which are stated in the ojffnion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Peters

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Peters, C. J.

The plaintiffs, having sued the defendants and attached their real estate in an action of assumpsit, ascertained that the estate attached was encumbered by a mortgage to S. C. Belcher. As attaching creditors, under the authority of certain provisions of our statute (B. S., c. 81, § § 60, 61), they paid the amount due on the mortgage to the morgagee, and took from him a release of his claim on the land. By the sections of the statute above cited, the release from the mortgagee vested in the plaintiffs the mortgage estate and enables them to maintain this (real) action to recover possession of the property mortgaged.

As one step in the proof of this action the plaintiff produced in evidence an office copy of the mortgage together with the original note secured thereby. The copy, although objected to, wras correctly received. The rule admitting copies of deeds in real actions applies with the same force to mortgages as it does to absolute deeds. The plaintiffs’ claim is not directly under the mortgage, but under a deed from the mortgagee. A mortgage is a deed. The plaintiffs merely seek possession of the land, and the statute accords to them that right.

It appears from an inspection of the copy presented that the mortgage was executed for and in behalf of the defendants by some of its officers, and the defendants objected to its introduction in evidence without preliminary proof that such officers had authority to execute the instrument for their principals. The answer to this objection is that the instrument, although a *286 copy merely, proves itself. Due execution and delivery are presumed until something appears to show the contrary. Whitmore v. Learned, 70 Maine, 276. Chamberlain v. Bradley, 101 Mass. 188 .

Exceptions overruled.

Walton, Virgin, Emery, Foster and Hasicell, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1899: 21901: 11920: 11940: 118992026peak 1899 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ellison v. Branstrator54 N.E. 433 (Ind. 1899)
  2. Ross v. Sutter223 S.W. 273 (Tex. App. 1920)
  3. Marvin v. Anderson87 N.W. 226 (Wis. 1901)
  4. First Auburn Trust Co. v. Buck16 A.2d 258 (Me. 1940)
  5. Sargent v. Chapman12 Colo. App. 529 (1899)

Most recent

  1. First Auburn Trust Co. v. Buck16 A.2d 258 (Me. 1940)
  2. Ross v. Sutter223 S.W. 273 (Tex. App. 1920)
  3. Marvin v. Anderson87 N.W. 226 (Wis. 1901)
  4. Ellison v. Branstrator54 N.E. 433 (Ind. 1899)
  5. Sargent v. Chapman12 Colo. App. 529 (1899)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Chamberlain v. Bradley, 101 Mass. 188 (1869) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list