63 N.H. 128 | N.H. | 1884
Upon competent evidence, it is found that when the mortgage was executed the intention of the parties was, not to apply the mortgaged property upon the mortgage debt, but to protect it from the mortgagor's creditors. In Ranlett v. Blodgett,
The intention not to apply the property upon the mortgage debt is equivalent to an understanding that the mortgagor may dispose of it for his own use. Here, in addition, there was an actual intent to withdraw the property from the reach of creditors, and to defraud them.
The cross-examination of a witness by the party calling him may be rendered necessary by the hostility of the witness or other cause; and whether sufficient cause exists is a question of fact to be determined at the trial term. Bundy v. Hyde,
The evidence that the mortgage was erroneously recorded was immaterial upon the question of fraudulent intent, and not calculated to prejudice the plaintiffs upon that issue. The other evidence objected to by the plaintiffs was competent.
Judgment for the defendants.
SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred. *129