1914 The Daniel Huguenot genealogy
Hij is getrouwd met Ida Aldrich.
Zij zijn getrouwd op 18 mei 1886, hij was toen 23 jaar oud.Bronnen 2, 6, 8
Kind(eren):
Charles Willard Wheeler Perrine | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1886 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ida Aldrich |
http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=26417119&pid=51/ Ancestry.com
Summary: Charles and Frank were in debt to someone named Bradley Redfield. In mid-February, Charles and Frank took out a loan from Charles' sister, Mary, for which they pledged certain property as security. (A "chattel mortgage" is an old-fashioned term for a secured loan, which is a loan that, if not repaid, allows the lender to take some of the borrower's property and sell it to satisfy the debt.) Mary did not record the mortgage until late March, and, on the same day, she took Charles and Frank's property as payment for the loan and sold the property to recover her loss on the loan. Five days later, Bradley finished the court process necessary to collect his debt against Charles and Frank. However, Charles and Frank did not have enough property to recover and Bradley also attempted to collect from Mary, claiming that the mortgage was void and that therefore Bradley, not Mary, was entitled to the proceeds from Mary's sale of Charles and Frank's property. The Court said that, while an unrecorded mortgage is void against a creditor, Bradley's rights as a creditor did not come into being until his court case finalized five days after the mortgage had been recorded and, therefore, the mortgage was valid and Bradley could not recover against Mary. To talk a little bit more about what's going on outside the case, it looks like Bradley tried to claim also that the arrangement among Charles, Frank, and Mary was not a true loan, but the trial court (the court whose decision was being appealed in the case you linked) ruled that there was no fraudulent intent by Charles, Frank, and Mary. It's also worth noting that the case you linked to is an appeal. In the original trial, even though the court there found no fraud, the trial court still voided the mortgage. Charles, Frank, and Mary appealed and the appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling (about the validity of the mortgage, not about the "no fraud" finding) with the decisions you found above./ Google Books