Tompson v. Tappan
Samuel Tompson v. Lewis W. Tappan, Jr., & others
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. Allen, J.
The plaintiff in this case presents but two questions: first, that the entry to foreclose was illegal and void; and secondly, that the receipt of money or value from the other security, before the foreclosure became absolute, was a waiver of the foreclosure.
1. The entry to foreclose, being made and recorded in the manner provided by statute, was valid and effectual for the purpose of foreclosure, although the mortgagee was the owner of the equity of redemption, subject to a second mortgage on the same premises, and although the holder of the second mortgage was ignorant that such entry had been made for more than three years thereafter. Fletcher v. Cary, 103 Mass, 475, 478. Ellis v. Drake, 8 Allen, 161 .
2. The fact, that, before the expiration of three years from the date of such entry, the mortgagee received the avails of other security held by him for the same debt, but to an amount less than the amount of the mortgage debt, does not of itself, and without other evidence, prove an intention on his part to waive the foreclosure. Lawrence v. Fletcher, 10 Met. 344 . Bennett v. Conant, 10 Cush. 163 , 167. Hobbs v. Fuller, 9 Gray, 98 .
It becomes unnecessary to consider the matter of loches.
Bill dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.