Case Name: Beacher et al. v. Cook et al.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-08
Citations: 1 Root 296
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beacher et al. v. Cook et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Beacher et al. v. Cook et al.
The mortgagor is to be considered as tenant at will to mortgagee.
Action of ejectment for a tract of land. Plea — Not guilty. Issue to tbe jury — who found a special verdict, that on tbe 14th of Eebruary 1761, Samuel Oook deceased, was well-seized of tbe demanded .premises, and by deed of that date mortgaged them to Eliphalet Beacher, late deceased, for £70 payable by the 14th day of Eebruary A. D. 1766 with tbe interest; that said Oook ever after continued in tbe possession of said mortgaged premises, tailing the whole profit thereof without account until bis death, which happened in A. D. 1788, and never paid any part of tbe principal or interest of said' debt, nor anything for rent, during bis life; that upon bis death bis son-Samuel one of tbe defendants,entered and ever since has possessed tbe same,-taking all tbe profits to himself, without paying anything therefor;-and that said Eliphalet tbe mortgagee, continued to live-in- said New Haven in tbe full possession of bis- reason, until the 1st of June A. D. 1777, when ha died, leaving-Reuben Beacher bis son, and Sarah a daughter, the wife of Seth. Coleman, his only children and heirs; that on the 1st of September A. D. 1788, said Reuben died and left a daughter Sarah, the wife of Ephraim Coleman, his only child and heir-; since which said Sarah Coleman the daughter of said Reuben Beacher has died, leaving the plaintiffs her children and heirs; — 'the jury put the question of law whether upon the facts aforesaid the defendants were guilty?

Opinion:
This cause was very ably argued by the counsel for the parties. And by the court — The law is so, upon the facts aforesaid, that the defendants are guilty, and give judgment for the plaintiffs to recover the possession.
Upon two grounds, 1st. It appears that the mortgagor and his son Samuel, continued in the possession, with the knowledge and consent of the mortgagee and his heirs; doubtless upon the idea that the land would be equal to. the debt and the interest, but be that as it may, the mortgagor is to be considered as tenant, at the will of the mortgagee and his heirs; and in this case to have remained in by the agreement of the mortgagee and his heirs.
2d. "When EHphalet, the mortgagee died, his daughter Sarah who was one of his heirs was a feme covert; and when said Reuben died,- his only daughter and heir was a feme covert; whereby the right was saved, unless it be considered that the time began to run in the life of said Eliphalet the mortgagee, which could not be; for it is evident from the facts found, that the mortgagor was tenant at will the whole of that time. See Beach v. Royce, determined at Hew Haven last January.