Todd v. Exeter Land Co.
Decision Date | 09 October 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 60—103.,60—103. |
Citation | 143 A. 428 |
Parties | TODD et al. v. EXETER LAND CO. et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by Ada L Todd and others against the Exeter Land Company and others. Decree for complainants.
Harcourt & Steelman, of Atlantic City, for complainants.
U. G. Styron, of Atlantic City, for defendants.
INGERSOLL, Vice Chancellor. The Margate Company was a New Jersey corporation organized to develop and exploit a large tract of land in Margate. On March 8, 1912, the said company created a mortgage on the lands in question in this suit to Emma Maitz Doherty to secure the payment of the sum of $2,200.
On April 26, 1916, Annie E. Hand recovered a judgment in the Atlantic county circuit court against the Margate Company for the sum of $5,005.50. On July 29, 1916, this judgment was assigned to the defendant Raymond P. Read. On October 10, 1916, the property previously levied upon by the sheriff on August 16, 1916, was by him sold to said Read. The sheriff's deed was recorded October 24, 1916. On April 11, 1917, Carlton Godfrey and said Raymond P. Read, who constituted the law firm of Godfrey & Read, incorporated the Exeter Land Company; they being the only stockholders, (except the wife of Mr. Godfrey, who had one share, manifestly for incorporating purposes). The company was admittedly a firm incorporation.
There can be no doubt but that Godfrey was the dominant factor in the partnership of Godfrey & Read, and of the corporation Exeter Land Company, and he was very extensively interested in the Margate Company, being an officer therein and his firm being the legal representative thereof. The registered office of the Exeter Land Company was the office of Godfrey & Read, and its registered agent was Carlton Godfrey. The sheriff's deed described the land deeded to Read as follows:
It is also admitted that the land in question is within this description, and that Godfrey furnished the money for the consideration therefor. Read was only acting as a conduit for the title, and on May 2, 1917, as conveyance was made by him and his wife and Carlton Godfrey and his wife to the Exeter Land Company, conveying inter alia the lands above described. This deed was recorded on May 5, 1917.
Default having been made in the payment of the said mortgage, proceedings were taken to foreclose.
The searches obtained for the purpose of these foreclosure proceedings were made prior to May 5, 1917, the date of the record of the deed to the Exeter Land Company, and correctly evidenced the title to the land in question to be in Read. The bill, however, was not filed until May 16, 1917, and Read was made a party thereto, but the pleader failed to include the Exeter Land Company as a party defendant. Evidently the precaution of having the search continued until or after filing of the bill was not taken.
Service of the subpoena ad respondendum was acknowledged for the Margate Company and for Raymond P. Read by Carlton Godfrey in the name of Godfrey & Read, solicitors.
No answer or other pleadings were filed by any defendant, and the cause proceeded to a final decree. A writ of fieri facias was issued to the sheriff of Atlantic county, who proceeded to advertise and make sale thereunder. Sale was made to Emma E. Moitz Doherty the complainant in said cause, and through mesne conveyances the title became in Julia N. Ireland, one of the complainants, on December 21, 1922. Ireland erected a dwelling on the property at a cost of about $27,000. She borrowed $15,000 on a construction mortgage. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Picconi v. Carlin, L--2114
...have been clearly established. See also, Morris & Essex Railroad Co. v. Prudden, 20 N.J.Eq. 530 (E. & A.1869); Todd v. Exeter Land Co., 103 N.J.Eq. 268, 143 A. 428 (Ch.1928). In 57 A.L.R. 1538, the rule is stated to be 'A title apparently defective because of an outstanding claim in a third......
-
Hollingsworth v. Lederer
...or knowledge concerning matters pertaining to his department or scope of authority." (14a C.J. 484, par. 2351b). See Todd v. Exeter Land Co., 103 N.J.Eq. 268, 143 A. 428; Id., 104 N.J.Eq. 431, 146 A. 303; Hercules Powder Co. v. Nieratko, 113 N.J.L. 195, 173 A. 606; Gaston v. American Exch. ......
-
536 Brd. St. Corp.. v. Valco Mortg. Co. Inc.
...as president of Broad, had no reason to question Warren's representations. Defendants also rely on the cases of Todd v. Exeter Land Co., 103 N.J.Eq. 268, 143 A. 428; Gaston v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 29 N.J.Eq. 98; Trenton Banking Co. v Woodruff, 2 N.J.Eq. 117; and Blake v. Domestic Mfg. ......
- Sarson v. Mueller