History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bank of Montclair v. Mallas
121 N.J. Eq. 266
N.J.
1937
Check Treatment

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; Van Riper v. Wickersham, 77 N.J. Eq. 232; Doutney v. Lambie, 78 N.J. Eq. 277; Security Bond andMortgage Co. v. Weiss, 101 N.J. Eq. 307; affirming 100 N.J. Eq. 156; Rosenson v. Bochenek, 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. *Page 267

Case Details

Case Name: Bank of Montclair v. Mallas
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Jan 27, 1937
Citation: 121 N.J. Eq. 266
Court Abbreviation: N.J.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.