In re Shreve
| Decision Date | 14 March 1917 |
| Citation | 87 N.J.Eq.7 710,103 A. 683 |
| Parties | In re SHREVE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
In the matter of the application of Rebecca H. Shreve and Lucy E. Shreve, for sale of lands limited over, etc. From an order confirming sale made, the guardian ad litem of infant remaindermen appeals. Affirmed.
Chancellor Walker orally announced the following opinion in the Court of Chancery:
On July 28, 1913, an order was made to sell certain lands in the city of Trenton limited over, etc., at public or private sale in fee, for not less than $56,200, subject to a mortgage of $5,000. On February 23, 1916, the master who was ordered to make the sale reported that he had secured the St. Regis Corporation to purchase the real estate in the order described, subject to the mortgage of $5,000, at private sale for the sum of $58,400, $1,000 having been paid to the master upon the acceptance of the offer and the balance of $57,400 to be paid in lawful money upon the delivery of a proper deed, provided that the sale should be confirmed by the court; the $1,000 to be returned in the event of non-confirmation. The offer to purchase was made pursuant to the terms of a certain agreement, in writing, dated July 11. 1914, between Rebecca H. Shreve and Lucy E. Shreve, life tenants of the premises, and Lucy E. Shreve, guardian of Dorothy I. and E. Mercer Shreve, infant remaindermen, and certain other contingent remaindermen of the first part, and the St. Regis Corporation of the second part. The agreement, among other things, recited that upon its signing the St. Regis Corporation would deposit in the Broad Street National Bank of Trenton, in the names of W. Henry Elfreth and Ellis L. Pierson, trustees, the sum of $1,000 to secure the payment of Clifford A. Worthington, a real estate broker, commissions claimed by him for the sale of the premises in question. The time of conveyance under the agreement was to be July 1, 1916. Of course, this agreement did not obligate the infants. It is because their estate in the premises could only be sold by sanction of this court that these proceedings were instituted.
On July 11, 1914. an indenture of lease was entered into between Rebecca H. Shreve and Lucy E. Shreve, the life tenants, and Lucy E. Shreve, guardian of Dorothy I. and E. Mercer Shreve, infant remaindermen, and the other contingent remaindermen of the first part, and the St. Regis Corporation of the second part, wherein the premises in question were demised to the party of the second part for the sum of $3,250 per annum, for the term of five years, payment to be made solely to Rebecca H. Shreve if she should live throughout the term, and, in the event of her death, then to Lucy E. Shreve for the balance of the term, and. in the event of the death of both during the term, then to a certain attorney for the persons entitled to receive the same. By the terms of the lease the party of the second part was to pay all taxes, water rents, and municipal assessments; keep the buildings insured against loss by fire; make all necessary repairs to the demised premises; the leases then in existence between Rebecca H. Shreve and the tenants of rooms, offices, and stores in the building were assigned to the party of the second part, together with rents reserved therein; the party of the second part at its own expense might make alterations, improvements, and additions to the demised premises, and tear down all or any portion of the buildings then or subsequently on the premises and erect other buildings in their place, upon certain conditions set out.
On April 8, 1916. an order was made on application of the solieitor of the St. Regis Corporation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Glaser
...nor are the rights of the other parties to be defeated, merely because this claimant happens to be an infant. In Re Shreve, 87 N. J. Eq. 7, 103 A. 683, affirmed 87 N. J. Eq., 710, 103 A. 683; Graves v. Graves, 94 N. J. Eq. 268, 120 A. 420. The total value of the equity in this property on t......
-
Feickert v. Feickert
... ... In ordinary cases the parties, being sui juris, must protect themselves and defend their own interests. In re Shreve, 87 N. J. Eq. 7, 103 A. 683, affirmed, 87 N. J. Eq. 710, 103 A. 683, but divorce cases, being sui generis, the public is a party to them, whose rights are represented and protected by the court. And, as the law favors marriage and disfavors divorce, it is the policy of the law, legislative as well ... ...
-
Caruso v. Caruso
... ... And it has been held in this state that while the rights of infants are not superior to those of adults, the difference between the two classes of persons is that the rights of infants must be protected by the court, while adults must protect their own. In re Shreve, 87 N. J. Eq. 7, 103 A. 683, affirmed Id., 87 N. J. Eq. 710, 103 A. 683; for the reasons given by the Chancellor. And this court held in Caruso v. Caruso, supra, that nothing can be taken as admitted against an infant, either by his default or on the answer of his guardian; and that it is the rule ... ...
-
Vanderpool's Gdn. v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co.
... ... Kavanaugh, 198 Ky. 26, 247 S.W. 1107, 1108, where the court on like facts said: ... "If Kavanaugh was an innocent purchaser of the land, he took a perfect title to the same even against the infants." ... To the same effect see 22 Cyc. 528, 21 C.J. 1001, In re Shreve, 87 N.J. Eq. 7, 710, 103 A. 683 ... 2. Should the infants have recovered $300 a year for the well? ... The proof as a whole leaves no room for reasonable doubt that the record in the county clerk's office originally read $100. This record was made upon the approval ... ...