Riverside Trust Co. v. Collin

• Decision Date: 27 September 1933
• Docket Number: No. 109.,109.
• Citation: 168 A. 377
• Parties: RIVERSIDE TRUST CO. v. COLLIN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

168 A. 377

RIVERSIDE TRUST CO.

v. COLLIN et al.

No. 109.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 27, 1933.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Bill of complaint by the Riverside Trust Company against Samuel W. Collin and others, and counterclaim by Frank F. Collin. From a decree dismissing bill and counterclaim, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

On appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery advised by Vice Chancellor Davis, who filed the following opinion:

"On January 26, 1927, defendant, Samuel W. Collin, borrowed from complainant $25,000 and gave his promissory note for that amount payable on demand, which note was signed and endorsed by him only. The money was borrowed for the purpose of paying part of the consideration of a farm then owned by Harry A. Sperber and Etta G. Sperber, his wife, in Delanco Township, Burlington County, N. J., which Dr. Collin was purchasing for $60,000.

"The settlement for this farm was made and the deed executed by the Sperbers to Samuel W. Collin and Beatrice F. Collin, his wife. Of the consideration, the sum of $21,000 had been advanced to defendant, Dr. Collin, by his wife, Beatrice F. Collin, to be invested in this farm. Her testimony and other evidence convinces me that this sum was advanced by Mrs. Collin prior to this conveyance in various amounts from time to time, aggregating $21,000. In addition to the money advanced by Mrs. Collin, $25,000 of the consideration came from the loan by complainant to Dr. Collin, and the balance of $14,000 came from moneys which he had at that time.

"The note of $25,000 was held by complainant without renewal and so far as the evidence discloses, without any demand for payment until five years later, in either January or February of 1932, at which time George J. Pitman, president of the complainant, sent for the defendant, Dr. Collin, and requested that he give a mortgage on the farm which had been purchased from Sperber. He requested that Dr. Collin bring his deed to him so that this mortgage could be drawn. Mr. Pitman testified that when the deed was presented to him by Dr. Collin, he (Pitman) discovered that the deed was in toe joint names of Dr. Collin and his wife. He further testified that he expressed surprise at this and told Dr. Collin that it did not agree with his former statements to the bank either in writing or made in taking the matter over, and further that T told him I hoped he realized he had put himself in a bad position because he had made false statements to the bank, which are of criminal nature, and that we must insist immediately upon being protected.' The witness, Pitman, so far as the testimony was concerned, made no effort to have a mortgage drawn, and did not request Dr. Collin to execute one after discovering that the title was in the name of both him and his wife. He testified that Mrs. Collin told him that if she had known that Dr. Collin wanted a mortgage signed she would have been willing to sign it.

"Shortly after the conversation between Mr. Pitman and Dr. Collin, Dr. Collin disappeared and has not been heard from since. No reason was advanced for his disappearance but it is apparent that the intimation of Mr. Pitman about the criminal nature of Dr. Collin's acts is probably the cause.

"There is nothing in the evidence which leads me to believe other than that Dr. Collin was a man of good standing and excellent reputation, and apparently enjoyed the respect and confidence of the people in the community in which he lived.

"The complainant obtained a judgment against the defendant, Dr. Collin, on June 20, 1932, for $20,378 and $532.13 costs based upon the note in question. On the same day complainant filed its bill of complaint against the defendants, Samuel W. Collin and Beatrice F. Collin, and two judgment creditors, seeking to have it determined that the deed from the Sperbers to the Collins for the Delanco farm was a transaction in fraud of creditors and seeking to have it decreed that the defendant, Beatrice F. Collin, holds title to the said farm for the benefit of her husband, Dr. Samuel W. Collin, and that it be decreed to be subject to the lien of complainant's judgment.

"The defendant, Frank F. Collin, a judgment creditor, filed a counter-claim in which he seeks the same relief as complainant.

"At the time of the making of the loan by complainant to defendant in January, 1926, Dr. Collin had some conversation with...