
    Albert Jewett vs. Martha A. Hamlin.
    Oxford.
    Decided April 4, 1878.
    
      Mortgage. Real action. Action.
    
    The mortgagor cannot maintain a writ of entry against the mortgagee, or his' assignees, without showing a satisfaction of the mortgage.
    Suing the notes secured by a mortgage, and procuring judgment upon them, without satisfaction, in no way affects the validity of the mortgage.
    A writ of entry by the mortgagor, against the mortgagee or his assignee, is not an appropriate action in which to determine the validity of an attempted foreclosure.
    On report.
    Writ oe entry. Plea, mil disseizin, with a brief statement of seizin of the defendant in her own right and in fee simple by virtue of a mortgage to her father (under whom she claims as devisee) and a legal foreclosure thereof.
    Jeremiah Woodward and wife conveyed the premises to the plaintiff, August 27, 1857, and took back a mortgage from him, May 11, 1858, to secure the payment of notes for $350; and his interest came to the defendant by devise.
    The defendant put in the record of an attempted foreclosure by her devisor. The plaintiff put in the record of a judgment on the notes, on which it was admitted nothing had been paid.
    
      8. F. Gibson, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. 8. Kimball, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

Suing the notes secured by a mortgage, and procuring judgment upon them, without satisfaction, in no way affects the validity of the mortgage.

The tenant is in possession of the demanded premises, as devisee of Jeremiah Woodward, claiming under mortgage made by the demandant to him, dated May 11, 1858. The mortgage is a valid subsisting mortgage. The mortgagor cannot maintain a writ of entry against the mortgagee, or his assignees, without showing a satisfaction of the mortgage.

A writ of entry by mortgagor against the mortgagee, or his assignee, is not an appropriate action in which to determine the validity of an attempted foreclosure.

Demandant nonsuit.  