Needle v. Perfection Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 67.,67. |
| Citation | 154 A. 878 |
| Parties | NEEDLE et al. v. PERFECTION CONST. CO. et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Proceeding for appointment of receiver by Saul Needle against the Perfection Construction Company, in which Lillian E. Hofmann petitioned for leave to foreclose mortgages and join Albert G. De Ronde as party defendant. Prom an order denying petition to foreclose and to join party defendant, petitioner Hofmann appeals.
Reversed, and record remitted, with directions to grant petition to foreclose and to join party defendant.
Jerome C. Eisenberg, of Newark, for appellant.
Benjamin Shanefield, of Newark, for respondent.
On the petition of a creditor holding a judgment for $150, the Court of Chancery, on March 28, 1930, appointed a custodial receiver for the Perfection Construction Company, a New Jersey corporation, and issued an order restraining the defendant, its officers and agents, from transacting any business of the corporation. On April 29, 1930, the appellant, holding mortgages aggregating $8,000, then due and owing, presented her petition for leave to foreclose the mortgages and to join the receiver so appointed by the court as a party defendant. On June 3, 1930, this petition was denied, and on the same day, on the application of the receiver, an order was made directing that the premises covered by the mortgages be sold free and clear of liens.
From these orders Lillian E. Hofmann, holder of the mortgages specified, appeals. The corporation defendant does not appeal.
The order appointing a receiver is attacked on the ground that it was upon insufficient proofs and in violation of the rules of the Court of Chancery. Section 111 of the Chancery Act, as amended (1st Cum. Supp. 1924, p. 269, § 33—111), provides that "all persons aggrieved by any order or decree of the Court of Chancery, may appeal from the same or any part thereof to the Court of Errors and Appeals."
It is to be observed that the corporation defendant has not appealed and is not complaining of the order appointing a statutory receiver. Just how the appellant as mortgagee is aggrieved by that order has not been made to appear. The order appointing a receiver had the legal effect of transferring property of the corporation to the receiver, and it is not apparent that any injury will result to her by this change of position and title.
As respects the denial of her application for leave to foreclose the mortgages and the making of the order to sell free and clear of liens, it is on the other hand quite apparent that she may be seriously aggrieved. A sale free of liens by the receiver would compel the mortgagee to make payment of the entire purchase price in order to protect her interest on a sale and of course to raise the funds necessary for this purpose. On the other hand, a sale under foreclosure of the mortgages would permit the mortgages to be used as a credit on the purchase price. This being true, the appellant's standing as a party aggrieved cannot be in doubt.
Coming then to the validity and propriety of the denial of the appellant's petition for leave to foreclose and the order directing the sale of the premises by the receiver, we think the court below was in error in the making of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkinson, Gaddis & Co. v. Shannon Lodge Sanitorium
...v. Eastside Holding Corp, 105 N.J.Eq. 485, 148 A. 637, affirmed without opinion 106 N.J.Eq. 278, 150 A. 920; Needle v. Perfection Construction Co., 108 N.J.Eq. 312, 154 A. 878; Twenty Nassau Street Holding Co. v. Twenty Nassau Street, 112 N.J.Eq. 213, 163 A. Surveying the facts revealed by ......
-
McGlinn v. Wilson Line, Inc.
... ... question as one lying in the field of discretion ... Needle, ... et al., v. Perfection Const. Co., 108 N.J.Eq. 312, 154 ... A. 878. The question of the ... ...
- Falkenstein v. Gibson, 9.