Naugle v. Baumann

• Decision Date: 07 June 1924
• Citation: 125 A. 489
• Parties: NAUGLE v. BAUMANN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

125 A. 489

NAUGLE

v. BAUMANN et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

June 7, 1924.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Suit by Reginald B. Naugle against Bertha Baumann and others. Decree rendered.

See, also, 125 Atl. 484, 486; 93 N. J. Eq. 638, 117 Atl. 725; 119 Atl. 100.

Earle A. Merrill, of Newark, for cross-complainant Bertha Baumann.

Smith & Slingerland, of Newark, for cross-defendant Naugle.

BUCHANAN, V. C. The original bill in this case was filed by Naugle, as vendee of lands under a contract of sale from Herbert McVoy, against McVoy and his wife, for specific performance of the contract. McVoy was not the owner of the lands when the contract was made, but was himself the vendee under a contract from the owner, Karl Baumann. McVoy, subsequent to his contract with Naugle, assigned his contract from Baumann to his wife Mary McVoy. Baumann refused to complete his contract by conveyance, and instead conveyed to his wife (defendant Bertha Baumann), who in turn conveyed to Elihu H. Cooley, taking back a purchase money mortgage. Mrs. McVoy sued the Baumanns and Cooley for specific performance of the Baumann contract, and obtained decree that Cooley convey to her. Cooley never did so convey, but copy of the decree was recorded, under the statute. The Naugle contract in terms comprises only a part of the lands, but complainant contends it was intended to comprise all. He prays for reformation, as well as for specific performance; and also prays that "the status" of the mortgage from Cooley to Bertha Baumann "be determined."

Cross-bill was filed in this cause by the defendant Bertha Baumann against complainant, Naugle, and against the McVoys, setting up substantially the foregoing facts, and further alleging that the cross-complainant is still the holder of the said mortgage made by Cooley, and that the moneys thereby secured are due and have not been paid. She also alleges that the McVoys "claim to own in fee the lands described in said mortgage, notwithstanding they have received no deed from said Cooley; and that they claim and "assert that said mortgage is null and void and not a lien upon the lands described therein."

It is further stated in the cross-bill that Naugle is made defendant to the cross-bill because the decree might affect his rights; that Mrs. Baumann "desires to have her rights, under said mortgage, declared"; and the cross-bill prays that defendants disclose what interest they claim in the lands and upon what such claim is based; and that defendants "be decreed to execute and deliver such instruments, and do such acts as shall be required to vest in cross-complainant such rights in, to, and under the mortgage as this court shall declare." (The hearing was had only in respect of the cross-bill; the parties stipulating that it should precede hearing on the original bill.) This cross-bill has already been dismissed as to the McVoys. It must also be dismissed as to Naugle.

In the first place, it is utterly anomalous and...