Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/791

 784 PEDEEAL EBPOBTEB. �and pay tte saîd encumbrances ; and that it was not the intention of the 'parties to the deed that he should assume aaid encumbrances; and that the clause in said deed express- ing such agreement was inserted therein by the mistake of the scriveners who drew the same; and that he (Drury) accepted said deed without the knowledge that it contained said clause, and did not become aware of the faet that it did contain said clause until some time in July, 1877, when Dag- gett, for the purpose of correcting the mistakes of the scrive- ner, and effectuating the intention of the parties to the deed, executed and delivered an instrument, under seal, releasing the defendant Drury from the obligations to pay the said encumbrances. �On February 17, 1880, complainant filed a supplemental bill, stating, in substance, that since the filing of the original bill a bill had been filed in this court against the said Drury and others by Eobert E. Kelly, the holder of the indebtednesa secured by the first mortgage for |28,000, and that such pro- ceedings had been had in said cause, that on the twenty- seventh day of June, 1878, a decree of foreclosure had been entered upon the said mortgage; and that upon the twenty- sixth day of July, 1878, the mortgaged premises were sold for the satisfaction thereof, and that no redemption had been had from said sale; and- that a deed had been made to the purchaser, by the master in chancery, on the thirtieth day of October, A. D. 1879; and prayed that the amount found due by the master in this cause be entered by this court against the defendant William Drury in accordance with the assump- tion of the said indebtedness. �Drury's answer to the supplemental bill admits the ex- haustion of the proceeds of the mortgaged premises by the foreclosure of the first mortgage, and refers to his answer to the original bill, which, he prays, may be taken as a part of his answer to the supplemental bill. The proof in this cause is mainly applicable to the questions of the fact whether or not the defendant Drury, in the purchase of the eQ[uity of redemption of the mortgaged premises, agreed, as part of th& transaction, to assume and pay these two mortgage debts^ ����