Case ID: mass_19/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alpheus Fay versus Joseph Valentine.
    A mortgagee being absent from the town where he lived, was requested by the mort gager to make out and deliver to him, within a reasonable time, an account of the sum due on the mortgage» He answered that if the mortgager would call on him when at home, he would give him all the information in his power. The mortgager, without calling, brought his bill to redeem. Held, that here wzs not a demand and refusal or neglect to account, which would sustain the bill under St. 1821, c. 85, § 1.
    This was a bill in equity to redeem, brought by the as signee of an equity of redemption against the assignee of the mortgage, and was founded upon the same statute as the bill in the last case. The defendant, who lived in Hopkinton, being in Southborough where the plaintiff lived, received there from one Peter Fay a writing, signed by the plaintiff, in which the defendant was requested to make out an account of the sum due on the mortgage and the same to deliver to the plaintiff, or his attorney, within a reasonable time. The defendant’s reply was, that it did not concern him; that it was his brother’s concern ; that if the plaintiff would come over to Hopkinton, he (the defendant) would give him all the information in bis power. And in his answer to the bill he made oath, that on the next day after he received this request, on his return to Hopkinton, he prepared an account and had ever since retained it for the plaintiff, when going from home always leaving directions with his family to deliver it to the plaintiff, if he should call or send for it in his absence, but that neither the plaintiff, nor any one for him, ever called for it, or said any thing to him on the subject, until long after the suit was commenced, except when the paper was delivered to him as before mentioned.
    
      Draper for the plaintiff.
    
      Hoar for the defendant.
   Parker C. J.,

in giving the opinion of the Court, said that the defendant ought certainly to have time to go home in order to make out his account. He let the other party know that if he would call at the defendant’s house, he would show him an account. . The plaintiff brought his bill without calling, and we think it cannot be supported. The defendant being away from his home when the request was made to him, I do not know that he was bound to give the plaintiff any answer.

Bill dismissed, with costs for the defendant. 
      
      
         See Willard v. Fiske, ante, 545, and n. (1).