Bushrod Washington

Name: Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court
Author: Bushrod Washington

Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Bushrod Washington. It explores elements such as mortgagor, mortgagee and equity.

Quotes from Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court (Bushrod Washington)

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ A Court of equity looks at the real object and intention of the conveyances; and when the grantor applies to redeem, upon an allegation that the deed was intended as a security for a debt, that Court treats it precisely as it would an ordinary mortgage, provided the truth of the allegation is made out by the evidence. So, too, the grantee in such a deed, may treat it as a mortgage, and, acknowledging it to be such, may apply to a Court of Equity to foreclose the equity of redemption, which will be decreed, in like manner as if an unexceptionable defeasance were attached to the deed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ Neither is the purchaser accountable for any part of the debt, beyond the amount for which the land may be sold, although it should have been deteriorated by waste, dilapidation, or other mismanagement. The claim, therefore, of a purchaser with notice, to have the value of the improvements which may have been made from the fruits of the property itself deducted from the price at which the property may be sold, seems to the Court too unreasonable to admit of a serious argument in its support. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ In respect to the mortgagee, who is seeking to foreclose the equity of redemption, the general rule is, that where the mortgagor has been permitted to retain possession, the mortgage will, after a length of time, be presumed to have been discharged, by payment of the money, or a release, unless circumstances can be shown sufficiently strong to repel the presumption, as, payment of interest, a promise to pay, an acknowledgment by the mortgagor that the mortgage is still existing, and the like. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ If either of these defendants should pay more than his proportion of the debt, according to the relative value of the property they possess, that is a matter to be settled amongst themselves. But it would be most unreasonable to force the mortgagees into the delay and expense incident to the adjustment of those differences between persons with whom they have no concern. The conveyances by the mortgagor to them are void, as to the mortgagees, against whom they have no right, except that of redeeming, upon payment of the mortgage debt and interest. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ A purchaser, with notice, can be in no better situation than the person from whom he derives his title, and is bound by the same equity which would affect his rights. The mortgagor, after forfeiture, has no title at law, and none in equity, but to redeem upon the terms of paying the debt and interest. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ In the case of a mortgagor coming to redeem, that Court has, by analogy to the statute of limitations, which takes away the right of entry of the plaintiff, after twenty years adverse possession, fixed upon that as the period, after forfeiture, and possession taken by the mortgagee, no interest having been paid in the mean time, and no circumstances to account for the neglect appearing, beyond which a right of redemption shall not be favoured. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ It must be admitted, that it was but constructive notice; but for every purpose essential to the protection of the mortgagee against the effect of those alienations, it is equivalent to a direct notice, and such is unquestionably the design of the registration laws of Kentucky. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Bushrod Washington, Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court

“ The next objection relied upon, is the alienage of the respondents. This objection would not, we think, avail the appellants, even if the object of this suit was the recovery of the land itself, since the remedies, as well as the rights, of these aliens, are completely protected by the treaty of 1794, which declares 'that British subjects, who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, &c. ”

Bushrod Washington

Summary

Quotes from Hughes v. Edwards — Opinion of the Court (Bushrod Washington)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature