Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1879-03-25

not kept MS covenant, Tor III ne hau not
assigned the ,chole mortgage to Newton, or
had excepted the parcel decided to her hus-
band, from the assignment, she would not
have lost her land,-and further that It was
by through and under the acts of this de-
PENDANT in the foreclosure and assignment
Of the mortgage after his quit-clalm with
the special covenant to the plaintiffs hus-
band, that she has suffered the loss of her
land and been put to this expense. The de-
fendaut was duly notified to come in and
defend this plaintiff in the former. suit, but
he did not, and the plaintiff made the best
defense she could TO save her land, aud
claims this is conclusive on this defendant.
The questions arising in this case being
purely questions of law, Mt the suggestion
of the presiding Judge, the case was re-
ported to the Law Court for decision as TO
the legal rights of the parties.
Foster. Hammons.
No. 1874 Eben c. Andrews vs.. Barnes
Walker This was an action of troyer.
Plaintiff resides in Norway and defendant
in Lowell, The question in dispute was the
title TO box buggy wagon. The plaintiff
claims TO have purchased it OF one j. w.
Piugree, OF the firm of Pingree & Eastman
of South Waterford, in April 1873, and To
have paid $1,000, aud hill OF sale was
given him by said Pingree at that time; the
wagon was never taken away 10y plaintiff
but lco in possession Of Pmgrcc as agent
OF plaintiff 10 sell; the wagon was taken TO
Fryeburg in 1873 aud remained there in
possession of one Otis True, aud Was ai'er-
wards in possession Of one Locke and
then IL was taken To Lowell and sold by
Lewis Eastman. the other member OF the
firm. to the defendant. The defense set up
was that although the sale was apparently
an absolute sale yet in fact 1t was only Sc
curity for the loan of the Sll5 by Andrews
that although the form of the written bill
Of sale was absolute on it, face yet il was
intended 10y Andrews and Pinsrce 10 be Sc
curity, and was in law an equitable mort
gage; this was the great question in con-
rorcrsy. Both plaintiff aud defendant
claimed to be purchasers toEg pie. The
deposition of Pngrcc had been taken and
was used by defendant and claimed to be
inconsistent with the statements hc now
makes in this case. Verdict for plaintiff
for Sll5.ll. The defendants move for a
new trial, and carry the case to Law Court.
Upton. Walker.
Foster.
No. 2sl.-Robnson Dean " joel II.
Bigclow Plaintiff lives in Buckhcld and
defendant In Livermore. Action OF troyer
for the conversion OF twenty -fyc ton, OF
hay. The question was who owned the
hay, the plaintiff or defendant The plain
til claimed the hay under A bill OF sale I'M
der seal. dated sept -, 1871. and claimed
the hay had been sold 10 him by one Oliver
Bonncy of Sumner, who borrowed $40 OF
plaintiff in Sept, l,77. Defendant claimed
the has by y purchase alleged 10 have
been earlier but was verbal; defendant
held a mortgage against Oliver Bonncy and
bought another against him of the plaintiff,
Sept. -, -, which, in all, amounted t.
81 .53j. In consideration of this said Bon
ncy agreed 10 deed the farm by warranty
deed. and the trade was 10 contain all the
L.. .,,.t c,,,,tr., ,,,l- ,, a.. n,un., 4, r,,
that in pursuance OF that, deft. went Ia
| the barn of Bonncy, where Bonncy dcliy-
cred him the hay ON said 18th OF Sept,
/ and the deed was not made until the 18th
of Sept Plaintiff claimed that this was
no delivery of the hay, for the hay was len
/ In the barn by dcft., and the plaintiff cat
| tie allowed To eat from It till Jan. !, ISIS,
the PIN. owning the cattle on the farm 10y
mortgage from Bonney; also that the bill
of sale To pill. was delivery to plh, Tn,
defendant claimed that the hay was put
into the bill Of sale without the knowledge
of Bonncy. rs it was agreed that the bill
of sale when made should cover Bonncy 5
hops. This was Bonncy's testimony, that
when he signed the writing he could not
read IL, ii was written So badly. The tes-
timony was very conflicting The jury
returned a verdict for defendant
! Black Foster.
DIVORCES GRANTED.
There were sixteen divorces granted a