Case Name: Jonathan Amory versus Joshua Fairbanks and Others
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1793-08
Citations: 2 Tyng 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonathan Amory versus Joshua Fairbanks and Others
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 490–490

Head Matter:
Jonathan Amory versus Joshua Fairbanks and Others
(august term, 1793,
in Suffolk.)
A mortgagee, who has entered for condition broken, may afterwards have an action upon the bond, and he will recover the difference between the value ol the bond, and the amount of principal and interest on the bond.
This was an action of debt on a bond, dated November 3, 1785, conditioned to pay the sum £277 Is. lid., lawful money, in six months with interest.
Amory, for the plaintiff.
Sullivan (attorney-general), for the defendants.

Opinion:
Upon oyer of the bond and condition, the defendants pleaded in bar that, on the day when the said bond was executed, they conveyed to him, the said Amory, in fee and in mortgage, a certain tract oi parcel of land in Framingham, &c. [describing it], which same lands were conveyed as collateral security for the performance of the condition of said bond, and that the said Amory thereafter, because the defendants had not performed the condition of said bond, on the ninth day of April, 1789, entered into and took possession of the said mortgaged premises for the same debt, and has yet had, and now hath the peaceable possession and seisin of the same, and this they are ready to verify; wherefore they pray judgment, &c.
To this plea the plaintiff demurred generally; and the defendants joined in demurrer.
The Court overruled the plea in bar; whereupon the defendants confessed the forfeiture of the bond, and prayed to be heard in chancery.
Judgment was rendered that the plaintiff recover the amount of the penalty of the bond declared on; and execution was awarded " for the sum of £185 10s. 9d., part of the [ * 563 ] *said penalty, being the balance due on said bond, after deducting the value of the land according to appraisement."
Note. This is the case cited in Neivall Al., Administrators, vs. fFright, ante, page 150.