Bradley v. Byran

• Decision Date: 31 October 1887
• Parties: BRADLEY v. BYRAN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

13 A. 806

43 N.J.E. 396

BRADLEY

v. BYRAN et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Octobor Term, 1887.

W. H. Vredenburgh, for complainant. C. Robbins, for Buchanan & Co. Flavel McGee, for Crisy & Crisy.

BIRD, V. C. Bradley was the owner of a lot of land. About June 8, 1882, he agreed to sell that lot to Edelstein for $1,500, and also to loan him, for the purpose of building thereon, $900 more. He, at that date, executed a deed for the lot to Edelstein, and Edelstein executed a mortgage. The testimony shows that the money was all advanced in cash or goods before October 6, 1882. On that day the deed was delivered to Edelstein, when he delivered his mortgage to Bradley. As between the parties to this suit, that entire claim of $2,400, together with the interest which has accrued, is good and is allowed. Prior to this 6th of October, 1882, the defendants Buchanan, Snock & Snock furnished lumber and materials to Edelstein for the house which he built on said lot. The lumber and the materials so furnished were of the value of $900. For this they had a right to file a mechanic's lien. This right they released to Bradley before he delivered his deed and accepted his mortgage, and, to secure their claim, accepted a deed for the premises from Edelstein. This deed was absolute on its face, but an agreement in writing was made which established the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee between the parties thereto. This defeasance was not recorded. On November 25, 1882, Buchanan, Snock & Snock conveyed by deed said premises to said Edelstein, on which day Edelstein conveyed to John M. Byran, and Byran executed a mortgage thereon to said Buchanan, Snock & Snock for the $900, the extent of their interest in the premises. These papers were all prepared and delivered as one transaction, at the same time. It was agreed between all the parties named that the transfer should be so made, and that the interest which Buchanan, Snock & Snock had in the property should be secured by a mortgage from Byran. In this way Byran was to pay so much of the consideration money. As between these parties there is nothing to remove the mortgage of Buchanan, Snock & Snock from the second place in order of priority. But the defendants Crisy & Crisy demand judgment in their behalf as between themselves and Buchanan, Snock & Snock. They hold a judgment at law, which was recovered in 1868 against John M. Byran, all of which they urge attached to the land in question, while the title was in process of transmission, prior to the lien of the mortgage by Byran to Buchanan, Snock & Snock. The question, therefore, is, was there such a breach or gap in the transaction, between the delivery of the deed by Buchanan, Snock & Snock to Edelstein, and the delivery of the mortgage by Byran to Buchanan, Snock & Snock, as will, under the rules of law, let in the judgment of Crisy & Crisy, and give it precedence to the mortgage? Of course, if this mortgage be a purchase-money mortgage, in the sense of the statute, then the Crisy & Crisy judgment must stand aside for the mortgage. Revision, p. 167, § 77. Was it such mortgage? I have no doubt but that the parties so intended it. It was part of the payment; nothing else stands in place of it. When, on November 26, 1882, they surrendered the title which they had acquired on October 6th previously, as security for their claim of $900, they accepted this mortgage from Byran on the same premises. The sale or transfer was not directly to Byran from Buchanan, Snock & Snock, but first the title was made to Edelstein, and then from him to Byran. In one view of the case, it was essential to pass the title to Edelstein, since, under the agreement, he was the owner of the equity of redemption. This, certainly, he could have conveyed or released to Byran. But evidently there was a just reason for allowing the title to pass through Edelstein. Since it is most apparent that the intention of...