Streeter v. Seigman

• Decision Date: 08 April 1901
• Citation: 48 A. 907
• Parties: STREETER v. SEIGMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

48 A. 907

STREETER

v. SEIGMAN.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

April 8, 1901.

Suit by John J. Streeter against Isabella Seigman, executrix of the estate of William V. L. Seigman, deceased. Decree in favor of defendant William W. Benthall and N. Henry Stevens, for complainant.

Louis H. Miller, for defendant.

GREY, V. C. (orally). This bill is filed by John J. Streeter against Isabella Seigman, executrix of the estate of William V. L. Seigman, deceased, to restrain the executrix from realizing on a judgmeut entered by her on a bond given by Mr. Streeter and his wife to Mr. Seigman, in his lifetime, by sale of the printing plant of the Vineland Independent The judgment was entered in the supreme court. Execution has been issued, and levy made upon that plant. The bond upon which the judgment was entered, though dated in 1893, appears to have been actually delivered some time in February, 1894. It contained a condition which presents one of the essential features of this cause. It is in the penal sum of $1,500, conditioned for the payment of the just sum of $750, as follows: "$375 on the first day of June, 1895, and the balance to be paid January first, 1806, with interest at 6% semiannually. It is agreed that no other real estate except the described in mortgage to be liable, or other personal property, without any fraud or other delay," etc. The contention of the complainant is that the last-quoted clause was an agreement on the part of the obligee in the bond that no other real estate, except that described in the mortgage which accompanies the bond, should be liable, and that no personal property should be liable for the payment of the debt evidenced by the bond. The complainant therefore asks that the execution of the judgment may be restrained so far as it is sought to be asserted against any other real estate than that named in the mortgage or against any personal property. The defendant answers that the clause in question was inserted in the bond without the knowledge of Mr. Seigman. There is no proof whatever of that claim; on the contrary, the only evidence submitted on the point goes to show that he did know of the insertion of the clause in the bond. The answer further insists upon the right of the defendant to levy upon the printing plant seized by the sheriff, and asserts that the bond was given in part payment for the very printing plant which is claimed to be seized under it. By way of cross bill the defendant alleges that there was a partnership between the complainant, Streeter, and one Wilcox, whereby Streeter agreed to help Wilcox to fulfill obligations assumed by him to Seigman, to the full extent of the hereinabove described property, which property the defendant insists in her cross bill is the property here in question, the printing plant. The cross bill further asserts that Wilcox agreed that he would secure Streeter for all such help, etc.; that to aid Wilcox in acquiring the plant for the use of the firm, Streeter gave to the defendant's testator—that is, to Seigman—the bond and mortgage for $750 mentioned in the bill; and that to secure him (Streeter) he received from Wilcox the bond and chattel mortgage for the same amount on the Vineland Independent plant. This chattel mortgage, the cross bill insists, was given to Streeter to secure him for the debt of Wilcox to Seigman, with respect to which it is alleged Mr. Streeter stood as surety for Wilcox, and inured to the benefit of Mr. Seigman's estate, which held the bond and mortgage given by Streeter for the Wilcox debt. The cross bill further says that subsequently, in pursuance of a contract between Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Streeter, the chattel mortgage was surrendered by Streeter, and canceled of record, without the defendant's assent The cross bill then prays that the chattel mortgage may be decreed to be held as above stated for the security of the Seigman estate, in law and in equity, and that the cancellation of that chattel mortgage through the permission of Mr. Streeter may be decreed to be void, and that the plant so mortgaged may be held to be still charged, and for a receiver and injunction in aid of the decree. That is the demand of the party to the cross bill, and to the relief there prayed the complainant, Streeter, makes reply, denying that he held the chattel mortgage as security, and claiming that the $750 bond was given to Seigman at Wilcox's request; that Wilcox gave the chattel mortgage to Streeter by way of exchange; and the cross-bill defendant, Mr. Streeter, claims that when he received the chattel mortgage from Mr. Wilcox he became the absolute owner of it, irrespective of any obligation on the bond which he gave to Seigman; and that when Wilcox had obtained Streeter to make the bond and mortgage to Seigman it was given...