Holland Reform Sch. Soc'y. v. de Lazier
| Decision Date | 06 March 1916 |
| Citation | 97 A. 253,85 N.J.Eq. 497 |
| Parties | HOLLAND REFORM SCHOOL SOCIETY v. DE LAZIER et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Bill by the Holland Reform School Society against Jacob De Lazier and another. From an order dismissing a demurrer of the named defendant (93 Atl. 199), he appeals. Affirmed.
Ward & McGinnis, of Paterson, for appellant. Francis Scott, of Paterson, for appellee.
The bill in this case was filed by the complainant to compel the two defendants, Jacob De Lazier and the Lewis Greasecup Company, to pay to it the sum of $1,306.96, with Interest, the amount of a deficiency remaining after the sale of mortgaged premises under a decree of foreclosure. The defendant De Lazier demurred to the bill, and on the hearing the Vice Chancellor, to whom the matter was referred, considering that none of the causes of demurrer which were specified in that pleading were of legal merit, advised its dismissal; and it was so ordered.
From the order of dismissal De Lazier appealed, and now contends that the following cause of demurrer specified by him was well founded, viz., that the subject of the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and that upon the face of the bill of complaint it appeared that the relief sought thereby lay solely in a court of law.
The following are the facts set out in the bill which are material for the purpose of determining the soundness of appellant's contention:
The mortgage, which was the subject of the foreclosure suit, was made by the complainant while it was the owner of the premises covered thereby.
After the making and delivery of this mortgage, and of the bond which it was given to secure, the complainant conveyed the mortgaged premises to the defendant De Lazier, the deed containing a covenant by him assuming the payment of the bond and mortgage.
Some time later De Lazier conveyed the premises to the defendant the Lewis Greasecup Company, and this defendant in turn, by a covenant contained in the deed to it, assumed the payment of the bond and mortgage.
The Lewis Greasecup Company, about a year after it became the owner of the mortgaged premises, defaulted in the payment of the interest due upon the mortgage and (the principal sum also being due and unpaid) the holder foreclosed the mortgage, the property was sold to pay the debt secured thereby, and a deficiency of $1,306.96 remained after applying the proceeds of the sale to the payment thereof.
The complainant in the foreclosure suit then brought an action at law on the bond against the maker thereof—the present complainant—for this deficiency, and in due course recovered a judgment therefor, with interest, which the latter was compelled to, and did pay. Other facts are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guarantee Mortg. & Fin. Co. v. Cox
...principal debtor. New Orleans, C. & L. R. Co. v. City of N. O., 143 U. S. 192, 12 S. Ct. 406, 36 L. Ed. 121;Holland Reform School Society v. De Lazier, 85 N. J. Eq. 497, 97 A. 253;Green v. McDonald, 75 Vt. 93, 53 A. 332;Sherwood v. Lowell, 34 Cal. App. 365, 167 P. 554;Felker v. Rice, 110 Ar......
-
Guarantee Mortgage & Finance Co. v. Cox
... ... 192 (36 L.Ed. 121, 12 S.Ct ... 406); Holland Reform Sch. Soc. v. DeLazier, 85 ... N.J.Eq. 497 (97 A ... ...
-
Meyer v. Supinski
...the grantees as between themselves. Such a suit is cognizable in equity in order to avoid circuity of actions (Holland Reform School Soc. v. De Lazier, 85 N.J. Eq. 497, 97 A. 253; Howell v. Baker, 106 N.J.Eq. 434, 151 A. 117; Feitlinger v. Heller, 112 N.J.Eq. 209, 164 A. 6), and the origina......
-
Finzer v. Peter
...in this very character of litigation and in which forum all the grantees can properly be joined. In Holland Reform School Society v. De Lazier, 85 N. J. Eq. 497, 500, 97 A. 253, 254, the court said: “That a court of equity is the only forum in which these various rights and obligations of t......