Case Name: Francis W. Marsh vs. Catherine Keating et al.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1905-05-12
Citations: 78 Conn. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francis W. Marsh vs. Catherine Keating et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
Francis W. Marsh vs. Catherine Keating et al.
Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,
April Term, 1905.
Torrance, C. J., Baldwin, Hamersley, Hall and Prentice, Js.
Questions not raised upon the trial need not be considered by this court on appeal.
A valid pledge may exist without such definiteness and certainty with respect to the debt as is required in the case of mortgages.
Submitted on briefs April 18th
decided May 12th, 1905.
Action to foreclose a mortgage of real estate, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, Curtis, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant Catherine Keating.
No error.
Susan C. O’Niell, for the appellant (defendant).
John C. Chamberlain and JE Ibert O. Hull, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
Prentice, J.
Counsel for the appellant in her brief makes only two claims of error. The first was not made upon the trial and need not be considered. General Statutes, § 802. Its nature is such that it would be unfair to the plaintiff to take cognizance of it at this stage of the cause.
The second is to the effect that as the mortgage note was taken from the mortgagee by the plaintiff and is now held by the latter solely as collateral security, and as the indebtedness, to secure which it was so taken and is so held, was in part, at least, one which might or might not have been created at the option of the pledgee and was indefinite and uncertain in character and amount, there was no lawful pledge and that therefore the plaintiff's title to the note fails.
This contention rests upon the proposition that there can be no valid pledge unless there exists such definiteness and certainty with respect to the debt as is required in the ease of mortgages. Such is not the law. Calkins v. Lockwood, 16 Conn. 276; Mersick v. Alderman, 77 id. 634; Moors v. Washburn, 147 Mass. 344; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Hall, 83 N. Y. 338 ; Sitgreaves v. Farmers § M. Bank, 49 Pa. St. 359; Buchanan v. International Bank, 78 Ill. 500. The argument attempted to be drawn, from an assumed analogy between mortgages and pledges is one which fails, since the analogy fails. Pettibone v. Griswold, 4 Conn. 158, 162; Stoughton v. Pasco, 5 id. 442.
There is no error.
In. this opinion the other judges concurred.