The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-01-29
TO SET ASIDE SALE.
Hearing on Bill Of Margaret Rocks
VS.. Patrick Cornell and Wife.
Claim Made Of CoIluslol Between The Mort
gagss AMI Cu-ienants. ~. (

Chief Justice Matteson and Justices
Stiness and Tillinghast in the appellate
court today, heard on bin. answer and
oral testimony, the equity case Of
Margaret Rocks Us. Patrick Cornell
and wife. The bill is brought TO set
aside a sale of property under mort
gage on the grounds that the price paid
was grossly inadequate, that the sale
was invalid by reason of the conduct
of the mortgage at the sale acting in
concert with other tenants in common,
and because the sale OF the premises
20 Cornell and wife, tenants in common
with the complainant in question atter
one defective sale, by reason OF the.
trust relation existing between
tenants in common did not
divest complainant Of her ute, but
should be treated as made in trust Tor
complainant and the other tenants IN
common as well as Cornell and wife
The complainant and the respondent
Mary A. Cornell. on and prior 70 Dc
cember 4. 1883. were seized ana pos
sessed i'm fee simple each II an un-
divided sixth part of the lot or lain
i'm Johnston. They had inherited the
same from their mother. The COM
plainant on above date was minor
Patrick Cornell and wife. were the
owners OF three undivided sixth parts
of said land ON December 4th, 1888,
Mr.. Rocks and wife joined in deed or
mortgage thereof 10 Charles y. Brown
for the sum of si65. interest az the
rate of per cent. per annum. De
fault was made in the payment or
principal and interest, and Brown ad-
vertised the property FOR sale, under
Dower OF sale in the mortgage, ana the
land was sold for 1910. Mrs. Rocks says
that Brown bid for some one or the
tenants in common other than herseii;
on 18Th Of May. 1899. Brown conveyed
his interests i'm the property To the re-
sp1ndents Cornell and wife, ana the
same day Cornell and his Wlte gave
mortgage onsthe same ana other preIa-
ises for the sum OF s400, interest at the
rate OF six per cent. per annum. The
property was taxed for $1,000. but only
five-sixths OF il was sold under the
mortgage,
THE complainant claims she never
ratified the power OF solei the mort
gage nor did she ever approve oi the
sale. and at the most she merely re-
mained inactive as she had the right
10 do during the term of the statute
of limitations after her majority. anu
mere delay i'm taking advantage OF
priyilege will not work as a waiver 'f
ratification Counsel for complainant
in his brief maintains further that any
secret agreement between the mort
gage and co-tenants such as alleged III
this case tends TO prevent compeuuon'
and cited "a large number OF cases 70
support his contention that on account
OF the relation of tenant in common
existing between Cornell's wife ana the
complainant. the property could not
az the sale be bid in by a tenant IN
common SO far as TO bar compl&haht
of an interest in the property.
The respondents claim the sale uu-
der the mortgage was a fair one and
they had no conference with Charles "A.
Brown. The holder of the mortgage,
under which the sale was held previous
TO the sale MIR. Brown denied ne
ever bid the property off for any one:
| for he told all the parties concerned
THAT all he wanted was his mortgage
money. interest and taxes.
Mrs Ivers me Of the heirs 10 tha
property testified Mr.. Brown told her
ne would bid the property in for her
for 1910 and he agreed to so do. MI,
Brown denied making The agreement,
James NJ. Girajn was attorney 10:
/ the complainant and Wood & Fitch at
torneys for the defendants