We concur in the view expressed in the court below, that the omission of the cestuis que trust from the foreclosure constituted a cloud on the title of the realty contracted to be sold, and that such cloud was not removed by the orphans court proceeding.
The rule that equity will not compel a purchaser to take a doubtful title, laid down in the chancery cases cited in the court below, has also the sanction of this court. Tillotson v.Gesner, 33 N.J. Eq. 313" court="N.J." date_filed="1880-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/tillotson-v-gesner-8267602?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8267602">33 N.J. Eq. 313; Van Riper v. Wickersham, 77 N.J. Eq. 232" court="N.J." date_filed="1910-06-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/van-riper-v-wickersham-8269008?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8269008">77 N.J. Eq. 232; Doutney v. Lambie, 78 N.J. Eq. 277" court="N.J." date_filed="1911-01-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/doutney-v-lambie-8269057?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8269057">78 N.J. Eq. 277; Security Bond andMortgage Co. v. Weiss, 101 N.J. Eq. 307" court="N.J." date_filed="1927-05-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/security-bond--mortgage-co-v-weiss-3556644?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3556644">101 N.J. Eq. 307; affirming 100 N.J. Eq. 156" court="N.J. Ct. of Ch." date_filed="1926-12-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/security-bond-c-co-v-weiss-3564890?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3564890">100 N.J. Eq. 156; Rosenson v. Bochenek, 102 N.J. Eq. 543" court="N.J." date_filed="1928-05-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/rosenson-v-bochenek-3568133?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3568133">102 N.J. Eq. 543.
The decree under review will be affirmed.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, HEHER, PERSKIE, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, COLE, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.