Case Name: Grosvenor vs. Little
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1831-05
Citations: 7 Me. 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: Grosvenor vs. Little.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
Grosvenor vs. Little.
If a tract of land mortgaged is situated in more to wns than one, it is necessary that the sheriff, in making sale of the mortgagor’s right in equity of redemption, under Shit. 1821, ck. GO, should post up two notifications in every town where any part of the land is situated.
This was a bill in equity to redeem certain mortgaged premises, the plaintiff having acquired the title of the mortgagor under a sheriff’s sale of the right in equity of redemption. It appeared, at the hearing, that though the main body of the land was in Minot, yet that a small portion fell within the limits of Poland, by the establishment of the line between those towns subsequent to the original laying out of the lots ; and that the officer, in advertizing the right in equity, which he had seized in execution, had posted up two notifications in Minot, but only one in Poland.
Hereupon Longfellow, for the defendant,
objected that the sale was void, for want of a compliance with the statute, which requires the posting of two notifications in the town where the land lies.
Greenleaf, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Weston J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
By the act respecting the attachment of property on mesne process, and directing the issuing, extending, and serving of executions, Stat. 1821, ch. 60, sec. 17, when an equity of redemption is seized on execution, the officer is required to give public notice of the time and place of sale, by posting up notifications thereof, in two or more public places, in the town or plantation where the mortgaged estate is situated. The sale operates a statute transfer of the interest ; and it is essential to the title of the purchaser, that the requisites of the statute should be complied with. A part of the land mortgaged was situated in the town of Poland. The officer posted up a notification in but one place in that town. The omission to do it in two places there, we are satisfied is fatal to the title of the purchaser. Nor is it in our opinion the less so, because the mortgage also embraced land lying in another town.