Case ID: mass_15/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The President, Directors, and Company, of the Boston Bank versus Solomon K. Chamberlin and Another.
    Where an infant made a mortgage of hie land, and, after coming of age, conveyed the same land subject to the mortgage, this second deed was holden to confirm and make good the mortgage.
    This was a writ of entry, upon the seisin of the demandants within thirty years, in fee and in mortgage. The demandants claimed under the deed of one John D. Waterman, an infant aged nineteen years. The tenants claimed under a deed from the same grantor after he came to full age; which deed recognizes the deed by him given to the demandants, and conveys the premises subject to the same.
    The cause coming on for trial, at the last May term in this county, before Putnam, J., and he being of opinion that the deed to the demandants was voidable only, and that the deed to the tenants did not avoid it, the tenants were defaulted. If the Court should be of a different opinion, the default was to be taken off, and the demandants were to become nonsuit; otherwise, judgment was to be rendered on the default.
    
      Dwight, for the tenants,
    contended that the deed to the demand-ants was wholly void, and that the reference to it in the deed to the tenants had no operation to make it good ; and he cited the cases of Jackson, ex dem. Wallace, & Al. vs. * Carpenter, 
      
      Jackson, ex dem. Brayton, & Al. vs. Burchin, 
       and Lloyd vs. Gregory. 
      
    
    
      
       11 Johns. 539.
    
    
      
       14 Johns. 124.
    
    
      
      
        Cro. Car. 501.
    
   But the Court agreed in opinion, with the judge who sat at the trial, that the deed of the infant to the demandants was voidable only. The deed to the tenants was a recognition of it, and made it good and effectual. The cases from New York were different. The second deed in this case was a confirmation of the former one, and nod no operation to avoid it. Let judgment be entered for the demandants, as on mortgage.

Gold for the demandants, 
      
      
         Barnaby vs. Barnaby, 1 Pick. 221. — Oliver vs. Houdlett & Al. 13 Mass. Rep 239. — Roof vs. Stafford, 7 Cowen, 9. — Belton vs. Briggs, 4 Dess. 465.— Course vs Birdsall, 1 Johns. Cas. 127. — Jackson vs. Todd, 6 Johns. 257. — Jackson vs. Burchin, 14 Johns. 124. — Wamsley vs. Lindenberger, 2 Rand. 478. — Roberts vs. Wiggin, 1 N H. R. 73. — Wright vs. Steele, 2 N. H. R. 55. — Kline vs. Bebee, 6 Conn. R. 494.— White vs. Flora, 2 Tenn. 431. — Sed vide 1 Atkinson's Conveyancing, 229.— 1 Prest. Abstr. 324. — 4 Barton, Conv. 9. — Dixon, tit. Deeds, 471. — Swansey vs. Administrator of Vanderheyden, 10 Johns. R. 33. — M'Gillis vs. Howe, 3 N. H. R. 348.— Curtin vs Patton, 11 Serg. Rawle. 305.