Grennon v. Kramer
| Decision Date | 17 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 96.,96. |
| Citation | 162 A. 758 |
| Parties | GRENNON v. KRAMER et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Matilda A. Grennon against Louis Kramer and others. From the decree, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
King & Vogt, of Morristown, for appellant.
Charles Handler, of Newark, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The state of the case discloses the following situation:
On April 3, 1919, an agreement was executed between Louis Kramer and James G. Marcrum wherein Kramer undertook to convey certain lands and premises then owned by one Albert W. Brown. Kramer enjoyed certain rights and privileges in said land and the agreement provided that the said Marcrum, upon acquiring title, should first execute a mortgage to the said Brown in the amount of $9,500, which was to be a first mortgage, and should further pay to the said Kramer the sum of $4,000 in the following manner: By giving twenty-three promissory notes, all of which were dated April 1, 1919, and which would come due, monthly, beginning July 1, 1919, the first three of which were in the sum of $100 each, the next six for $150 each, and the balance for $200 each. The payment of these notes was to be secured by a mortgage covering the real estate conveyed and was to be second to the mortgage of $9,500, above referred to, and also secured by a chattel mortgage in favor of Kramer, covering the personal property.
On May 15, 1918, Albert W. Brown and Margaret W. Brown, his wife, conveyed the land in question to James G. Marcrum and wife by deed of warranty, and, on May 6, 1919, said Marcrum and his wife executed and delivered to said Albert W. Brown a bond and mortgage in the sum of $9,500. The said Marcrum on May 6, 1919, executed and delivered to Kramer the chattel mortgage, above referred to, as well as a bond and mortgage in the sum of $4,000 as agreed. The promissory notes were also delivered.
The Kramer mortgage was in fact recorded first so that the record disclosed the Brown mortgage to be second to Kramer's, contrary to the agreement.
The last of the Marcrum notes to Kramer became due May 1, 1921. The mortgage to Brown did not become due until May 1, 1923. Marcrum paid off about $1,100 in reduction of the obligation to Kramer.
On October 31, 1928, Marcrum, for the sum of $2,000, procured an assignment of the mortgage of $9,500 held by Brown. The assignment was first executed by Brown, in blank, and latterly a new assignment, in lieu of the one first given, was executed in favor of Matilda A. Grennon. Now, prior to this transaction, the complainant, Matilda A. Grennon, who is the mother-in-law of Marcrum, loaned him the sum of $2,500. The evidence disclosed that it was with $2,000 of this money that Marcrum procured the assignment of Brown's mortgage to Mrs. Grennon, and that it was for this purpose the loan was made. Then it was discovered that the mortgage owned by Brown had been recorded subsequent to the Kramer mortgage and the complainant filed a bill in the Court of Chancery to have the mortgage, which she received by assignment from Brown, declared to be a first lien on the premises.
In the answer and counterclaim filed, Kramer takes the position that, because the mistake, which made his $4,000 mortgage a first lien, had gone uncorrected for a period of thirteen years, he now be decreed to be the holder of a first mortgage on the land and premises in question, notwithstanding the agreement between himself and Marcrum. He further alleges that because Marcrum received assignment of the $9,500 mortgage, he, Marcrum, became in fact the owner of such mortgage which perforce merged with the fee and thereby was extinguished as a lien, and then, by way of further counterclaim, seeks to foreclose his mortgage as a first lien.
The court decreed that the premises aforesaid be sold in order to satisfy the amount due on the Kramer mortgage, with interest, but subject to the prior claim of Mrs. Grennon in the amount of $2,250 with interest from May 6, 1931 (this being the amount due on the $2,500 loan), and that the owner, Marcrum, and his wife be foreclosed from all equity or redemption of said mortgaged premises when so sold, and from this decree the complainant, Mrs. Grennon, appeals.
Complainant's counsel argues four points in this appeal: First, that the appellant, Mrs. Grennon, is entitled to a prior lien in the full amount of the Brown mortgage, namely, $9,500; second, that the Kramer claim was barred by the statute of limitations; third, Kramer was not entitled to interest; and, fourth, that he is estopped from asserting and enforcing his lien.
That the appellant's first point is not tenable is very clear from a reading of the testimony.
One of the exhibits in the case is a letter from Mrs. Marcrum to her mother, the complainant, in which she says:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re NJ Affordable Homes Corp., Case No.: 05-60442 (DHS)
...Super. 388, 397 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1993), aff'd, 273 N.J. Super. 542 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994) (citing Grennon v. Kramer, 162 A. 758, 759-60 (N.J. 1932); Mardirossian v. Wilder, 76 N.J. Super. 37, 40 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.1962). Assuming that the obligations and, therefore,......
-
Great Falls Bank v. Pardo
...the mortgage has no efficacy. Thus, when the underlying obligation fails, the mortgage becomes a nullity. See Grennon v. Kramer, 111 N.J.Eq. 337, 340-41, 162 A. 758 (E. & A. 1932); Mardirossian v. Wilder, 76 N.J.Super. 37, 40, 183 A.2d 761 (Ch.Div.1962); Weinberg v. Weinberg, 118 N.J.Eq. 97......
-
Lincoln Federal S. & L. Ass'n v. Platt Homes, Inc.
...to the face amount of the mortgage itself. Mayo v. City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 56 N.J. 111, 265 A.2d 382 (1970); Grennon v. Kramer, 111 N.J.Eq. 337, 162 A. 758 (E. & A. 1932); Ward v. Cooke, supra, 17 N.J.Eq. at 99; Bell v. Fleming's Ex'rs, 12 N.J.Eq. 13 (Ch. 1858), aff'd, 12 N.J.Eq. 490 (......
-
Mayo v. City Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
...to the extent of $607,500, the money actually advanced to that date and not for the face amount of the mortgage. Grennon v. Kramer, 111 N.J.Eq. 337, 162 A. 758 (E. & A. 1932). Where it is optional with the mortgagee whether to make future advances, he does not have a prior lien for those ad......