Pugh v. Comm'rs of Sinking Fund

• Decision Date: 02 December 1891
• Citation: 53 N.J.L. 629,23 A. 270
• Parties: PUGH et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF SINKING FUND.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

23 A. 270

53 N.J.L. 629

PUGH et al.

v. COMMISSIONERS OF SINKING FUND.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Dec. 2, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.

Error to supreme court.

Ejectment by the commissioners of the sinking fund against William C. Pugh and others. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

F. W. Stevens, for plaintiffs in error.

W. F. Johnson, for defendants in error.

VAN SYCKEL, J. This is an action of ejectment brought by the commissioners of the sinking fund against William C. Pugh and wife to recover possession of a lot of land in the city of Newark. The plain tiffs below claimed title under a mortgage executed to them on the locus in quo July 2, 1873, by the then owner of the premises. The said premises were sold under a decree for the foreclosure of said mortgage, and conveyed to the said plaintiffs by the sheriff of Essex county in December, 1879. The defendants in ejectment claimed title under a sale upon an adjustment of taxes in the city of Newark, made by commissioners appointed under the Martin act. In all respects the title of the said defendants, as it appears of record, is in compliance with the provisions of said law. Some of the adjusted taxes were a lien upon the said premises prior to the date of the plaintiffs' mortgage, and others of a date subsequent to said mortgage. The sale to the defendants was made to satisfy all of said taxes. The charter of the city of Newark gives priority to taxes over all conveyances and incumbrances, prior or subsequent, but it is the settled law of this state that provisions of that character in municipal charters do not apply to mortgages made to the state, or its representatives, to secure the funds of the state invested on mortgage. The lien of such mortgages cannot be displaced by taxes subsequently imposed. Trustees v. City of Trenton, 30 N. J. Eq. 667; City of Elizabeth v. The Chancellor. 51 N. J. Law, 414, 17 Atl. Rep. 942. It is therefore clear that a purchaser under a sale for subsequent taxes would not acquire a title superior to that of the plaintiffs below. It does not appear how any greater efficacy can be given to the defendants' title from the fact that the sale to him was under proceedings to make the combined prior and subsequent taxes. The Martin act provides that, in order to redeem after sale, the mortgagee must pay the whole purchase money; that is, all liens superior and inferior to his security. The state cannot be deprived of the right to...