|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEALE v. HAGTHROP. 889
The defendant Matthew Bennett, in his answer, says, that he is
in possession of a part of the ten acre lot, mentioned in the bill,
which he holds under a conveyance from Hagthrop and wife, dated
on the 3d of August, 1810. But this defendant too has left his
answer entirely destitute of proof. The bill expressly alleges, that
Hagthrop and wife, by deed dated on the 23d of December, 1819,
leased a part of the lot on Alice-Anna street to Matthew Bennett,
In relation to which this defendant says nothing in his answer;
this allegation of the bill, as against him, must therefore be taken
for true. He will be decreed to deliver up and reconvey all the
property held by him to the plaintiff; and to account for the rents
and profits of each parcel from the time he took possession.
The defendant Nathaniel Chittenden, admits, that he holds pos-
session of a part of the lot on Alice-Anna street, to which he de-
rives title through various mesne conveyances, from the late John
Hook. He avers, that he, and those under whom he claims, were,
all of them, purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice;
but produces no proof in support of these allegations of his answer.
He, therefore, will, in like manner, be decreed to deliver up and
reconvey the property so held by him to the plaintiff, and be held
accountable also for the rents and profits.
The defendant James Hook, on the 7th of February, 1823, filed
his answer, as he says therein, to the amended bill of the com-
plainant; but there does not appear to have been any amended
bill put upon the record until some time after that day. There is,
however, no charge whatever made against this defendant; and
therefore the bill will be dismissed as to him with costs.
I have said, that the recital and proviso, of the indenture of the
17th of August, 1797, from Anthony Hook to John Hook, gave to
that instrument the features and character of a mortgage. Conse-
quently the original parties stood, and their legal representatives
now stand in the relation to each other of mortgagor and mort-
gagee, or trustees and cestui que trusts. No acts or circumstances
appear to have occurred to destroy the redeemable quality of that
deed. Hagthrop and wife, as administrators of the late John
Hook, have succeeded to his character of trustee. And the de-
fendants, who all claim under them, except Nathaniel Chittenden,
who deduces his claim from the late John Hook, being purchasers
with notice, for so much as they respectively hold, stand charged
with the same trusts.
The whole of the property mentioned in the bill has been conti-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
