The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-01-14


| mortgage and not a sale
Notes or other evidences of Indebted
ness are not necessary to render trans
| action an equitable mortgage
there is in fact an Indebtedness or
Liability secured by the transaction, that
| is sufficient.
When party purchases real estate that
| is subject to a trust, he cannot be consid
ered bona fide purchaser without notice
| II he has actual notice of such trust.
AcGual notice, as used in such cases,
does not mean actual notice of the fact,
but notice OF facts which would or ought
to put him upon inquiry in reference to
it.
In the redemption of real estate mort
gagged, the mortgage will not be allowed
Tor permanent improvements in the way
OF new structures not necessary for the
preservation OF the property and made
without the consent of the mortgagcr.
The only exceptions to this rule is ID,
where the improvements have been made
by the mortgages under bona fide but
mistaken supposition that he was the
actual owner, and that the equity of re-
dempt1on had becomed barred, or ca.
where the MORTGAGE had reason to be-
lieye from the form of his conveyance or
the circumstances of his purchase, that
he was the absolute owner.
A complaint in dill in equity may
discontinue as to parties upon the pay
ment OF costs: or without, il not claimed
BY tie respondent.
Bill sustained with COSTS
Kennebec, IS.
City of Gardiner VS. Inhabitants of
Manchester.
Resoript-Strout. J. Elizabeth M.
Hutchinson, til pauper to whom sup
plies were furnished, was married by a
magistrate on June 8, 1878. No certifl-
cate OF intention of marriage had been
obtained, as required by law. Neverthe-
less the marriage was valid. The pauper
status OF the children of that marriage
is determined by the law as it stood at
the date Of the marriage. Even ii the
marriage was procured to change the set
Element of the wife, by the law as it
stood at the date Of the marriage, her set
Element alone would be affected, but her
children took the settlement of the faith
or. r. S. of1871, c. 1894, 81. The fathers
settlement being in Gardiner. the chill
dren who were then minors, and who
were born before the marriage having
become legitimate by the subsequent
had their pauper settlement in Gardiner,
by derivation from the father.
The evidence in the case fails to satisfy
us That the marriage was procured to
change the wife's settlement; she, there
fore, took her husband settlement MT which
was in Gardiner.
Judgment for defendants.
Hancock, IS. 5a H
Bedford E. Tracy vs. Catherine G.
Roberts ct ais.
Catherine q. Roberts ct ais. in Eq
VS.. Bedford e. Tracy.
Rescript- J. A guardians
sale OF real esta is irregular and void
where there Is no petition or license Gov
ering the premises conveyed. and where
| there is no bond or notice of such SALE
In such cases the Probate Court has no
jurisdiction over ths subject matter.
Nor does the five years. limitation,
provided by r. S. C II, g. 80, in which
an action may be brought by the ward or
other persons claiming under him to
avoid such sale, apply to such case.
The limitation applies to defective sales
under licenses from court having juris-
diction, but not where there was no petit
tion or license.
1t lis competent for a ward when he
becomes of age to ratify and affirm
sale made by the guardian where it is
inaylid for a want of compliance with
some statute requisite. or to avoid it
within reasonable time.
Facts stated that will BIZ regarded AS
ratification.
When the consideration has been re-
ceived and retained upon defective
sale, and such sale was made by the guar
dian in good faith and the wards have
received the benefit of the proceeds, there
being no frauds or mistakes, but full
knowledge OF the facts, the doctrine of
quitable estoppel applies, and the party
cannot afterwards claim the land itself
In Bedford E. Tracy VS.. Catherine
Roberts ct ais. Judgment for the ten
nants.
In Catherine G Roberts ct ais in ED.
vs.. Bedford E. Tracy. Bill dismissed
without costs.
Hancock, S..
Clarence P. Weston vs.. Mount Desert
and EasternIShore Land Company.
Rescript, - Strout, J. The officer made
an attachment of real estate on April az,
1891, and duly returned it to the Regis
try of Deeds. Some person unknown
fraudently changed the date of the at
tachment on the writ to April rs, and
made the same alteration in the officers
return to the Registry of Deeds, and in
the Registers minutes and records of at
taohments. On petition of plaintiff, the
officer was properly allowed to correct the
date in his return on the writ, by restor-
ing the origna and true date.
Exceptions overruled