Modern Reports Volume 9; V. 1722-1755 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1795 Excerpt: ... filed his bill, viz. in 1729; so that the account of time which is to run against a redemption is only to be taken from the time of the discovery, and not from the time of the mortgage made, snd then the bill will be brought in a proper time for a redemption. The Court will not admit time to run against an infant; and the plaintiffs ought to have the lame privilege, for it was not possible for them to bring a bill for redemption of what they did not know belonged to them: before they ought to be precluded from a redemption, Mr. Ewer ought to have foreclosed the equity of redemption. Redemption of It has been often mentioned in this court, that the Jlatute of Limimortgages sub-tations, as to making entries and bringing ejectments, is the rule J'ct.sta?ute the Court directs itself by in the redemption of mortgages. But of Limitations.. 1, v, 1 n r r foe making en-tnat IS not tne onv ru'e fr tne particular circumstances of a cafe tries and bring-are also to be taken into the account, as appears in two cafes in Ing ejectments; fernon. The first is that of Orde v. Hcming (a), where a bill was bmwheremort-to receem a mortgage; and the defendant demurred by reason of hofdsuntUriie pla'nt'ff's own shewing, for it appeared the mortgage was sixty mortjageissatis-years old; but the demurrer uponargument was over-ruled, because fied, as in tf.ijb it was charged in the bill, that the mortgagor agreed that the mortniortgagcsjtliere gagee should enter and hold until he was satisfied, which is in the n5 time bars the nature 0f a ffcljb mortgage; and in such case the length of time is TMpfon.S" no objection. The second cafe is ProSlor v. Confer (b): The bill 1 Vrm '41S. was filed in 1700 to redeem a mortgage made in 1642; the mort gagee entered in 1650; there were thr...