Murch v. The J. O. Smith Manufacturing Co.

• Citation: 20 A. 213,47 N.J.Eq. 193
• Decision Date: 01 May 1890
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
• Parties: BELLE C. MURCH v. THE J. O. SMITH MANUFACTURING COMPANY

20 A. 213

47 N.J.E. 193

MURCH

v. J. O. SMITH MANUF'G CO.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 22, 1890.

On bill, answer, and proofs.

Gilbert Collins, for complainant. Robert L. Lawrence, for defendant.

GREEN, V. C. Mrs. Belle Murch, who was seised in fee of a house and lot in Jersey City, died March 20, 1879, leaving her surviving her husband, John F. Murch, and one child, Belle C. Murch, the complainant. After Mrs. Murch's death the husband continued in possession of the property as tenant by the curtesy until August 11, 1887, when his right, title, and interest therein was sold under a judgment by the sheriff of Hudson county to the defendant corporation, which has since been in possession and in receipt of the rents thereof. John F. Murch, during his occupancy as tenant by the curtesy, neglected to pay the taxes on the property for the years 1884, 1885, and 1886, and the same, amounting in the aggregate to $123.76, with interest and penalties for non-payment, are still in arrears. The taxes for 1887 were paid by the defendant corporation. Those for 1888, amounting to $42.72, besides interest and penalties, are unpaid, but the defendant in its answer admits its liability to pay the same.

The bill further alleges that the house has also been permitted to get out of repair, and prays that the defendant be required to pay the outstanding taxes, and put the property in good repair by a certain day, or in default that a receiver be appointed to receive the rents until such time as the receipts therefrom will pay the said taxes and make the necessary repairs. The rental value of the premises is, and since a time prior to the imposition of the taxes for 1884 has continuously been, at least the sum of $264 per year. The defendant denies its liability for the tax in arrear at the time of its purchase, and denies that the property has been allowed by it to get out of repair.

Taxes on real estate, and interest accruing on an incumbrance thereon, stand on the same footing, and must be paid by the life-tenant. Holcombe v. Holcombe, 29 N. J. Eq. 597, 27 N. J. Eq. 473; Pratt v. Douglass, 38 N. J. Eq. 516; Thomas v. Thomas, 17 N. J. Eq. 356.

The liability as a rule is limited to the income received, or the rental value of the property in case it is occupied by the life-tenant. 4 Kent, Comm. 75; Lord Kensington v. Bouverie, 7 De Gex, M. & G.134, 7 H. L. Cas. 557.

The tenant for life is bound to keep down these charges, not only as the profits come into his possession from year to year, but the whole profits during the estate for life are applicable to the discharge of the liability. Caulfield v. Maguire, 2 Jones & La T. 141.

If Mr. Murch had continued in possession as tenant by the curtesy, the rents of the property at any time during such possession would have been liable, not only for the current taxes, but also for taxes falling in arrear during his tenancy; and in the event of his neglect or refusal to so apply them, a receiver would have been appointed to take such income, and apply it to the discharge of the indebtedness. Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. 312.

It is claimed by the defendant that it is only liable for its own default; that it cannot be held responsible for the tax which a former occupant failed to keep down. Some difference of opinion has existed whether the tenant...