Bartlett v. Gilcreast

2 Citing cases

  1. Gilcreast v. Bartlett

    64 A. 767 (N.H. 1906)   Cited 3 times

    BILL IN EQUITY, to remove a cloud from the plaintiff's title, caused by the levy hereinafter mentioned. Facts found, and case, transferred from the January term, 1906, of the superior court, by Chamberlin, J. The present plaintiff was the defendant in Bartlett v. Gilcreast, 72 N.H. 145, and the present defendant was the former plaintiff. After the decision in that action, the judgment in favor of Sleeper against John R. Gilcreast was sued and a new judgment was recovered, from which an execution issued and was levied February 1905, upon all the right in equity of John R. to redeem the undivided half of the tract of land mentioned in the former case that was conveyed by John R. to his wife (the present plaintiff), April 13, 1897.

  2. Dziatlik v. Holy Trinity c. Church

    166 A. 284 (N.H. 1933)   Cited 2 times
    In Dziatlik v. Holy Trinity c. Church, 86 N.H. 234, a petition for redemption and an accounting was begun under P. L., c. 345, ss. 26 and 34, now RSA 529:26, 34. The purchasers of the property at an execution sale sold it to the defendant.

    Until the passage of Laws 1899, c. 73, s. 1 (P. L., c. 345, s. 27) a levy on an unincumbered estate in fee had to be made "by setting off the real estate, or enough of it to satisfy the execution." Bartlett v. Gilcreast, 72 N.H. 145, 146. The act of 1899 authorized such property to be sold in the same way that "rights of redeeming real estate mortgaged" are sold, and granted to the debtor "the same right of redemption from such sale," but, continuing to observe the distinction between the two types of property, did not abolish the creditor's right to appraisal and set-off.