The Republican journal., 1917-05-03
DECISION OF THE LAW COURT
In the Lincolnville Case of Lizzie S. Thomas
vs.. Adelbert A. Hall.

Judgment for the defendant" has been re-
turned from the Law Court in the case of Liz
zie S. Thomas vs.. Adelbert A. Hall, Lincoln
vile parties, Rescript by Justice Madigan.
The plaintiff brought a writ of entry to SET
tie the title of real estate. By agreement of
the parties, the case was reported to the Law
Court for determination upon much of the
evidence as is legally admissible.
The defendant had given the plaintiff, for
real estate purchased of her, demand note
for 1926, secured by a mortgage which was
second to prior mortgage which the defend
ant assumed and agreed to pay. Her own ef-
forts to collect being unsuccessful, the plain
tiff placed the matter in the hands of an at
torney. She was advised that, because of
the financial irresponsibility Of the defendant.
the chances of collecting were extremely
doubtful, but that it was advisable to try
foreclosure by publication. The foreclosure
notice was signed by the plaintiff and seen by
her in print. The defendant was referred to the
attorney by the plaintiff as the proper person to
settle with. The attorney several times assured
the defendant that he had until May 18th to
make payment and this information was COM
municated to the plaintiff. Though the attorney
subsequently learned that the time for re-
demption would expire the 9Th of May in
stead of the 18th as he had supposed. he did
not inform either the plaintiff or the defen-
dant of his error, but still told the defendant
payment could be made within the time origi-
nslly set by him. While the plaintiff COM
planned about the foreclosure because of ex-
pense to her, and claimed that a suit on the
note would have been more efficacious, she
continued to let the attorney handle the claim
During the forenoon of May 18th, one Knight
came to the attorneys office with the defend
ant and stated that they had agreed that
Knight should help the defendant out of his
trouble by buying the plaintiffs note and
mortgage, SO the defendant would owe Knight
instead of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff failed
to come to the attorneys office, after being
sent for, and Knight was about to withdraw.
the attorney took the amount of the mortgage
and accrued costs, endorsed the note and as
signed the mortgage, as attorney for the plain
tiff. When, later the same day, the money
was offered the plaintiff by her attorney
she refused to accept it, stating that she in
tended to punish the defendant. On the night
of the l1th of May the buildings had been de-
stroyed by lightning, which fact was known to
all parties on the 18th. Insurance on the
burned buildings increased the value of the
plaintiffs security. The plaintiff claims tn
defendants rights and Knights rights in the
premises were extinguished by foreclosure of
the mortgage.
Held; 1st. that the assurance given the de-
I fendant that he had until May 18th to pay the
mortgage, was an extension of the period of
redemption to that date, that under the facts
of the case the attorney had authority SO to do
and that the plaintiff was bound by his action.
2nd, that knight was not volunteer. but
having paid the mortgage on the assurance
from the defendant that she should have the
plaintiffs rights under the note and mortgage,
he was entitled to receive and hold the same
under the principles of subrogation.
3rd, the right by subrogation is equitable
matter of defense to this action at law, which
was reported without any limitation of the
court to the pleadinqs, and that the Law Court
can give effect to the same, even though not
pleaded.