Bertolino v. Belfatto

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Bertolino v. Belfatto

18 A.2d 11, 129 N.J. Eq. 89

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 5, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.2d 11 (Bertolino v. Belfatto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bertolino v. Belfatto, 18 A.2d 11, 129 N.J. Eq. 89 (N.J. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

*90 Per Curiam.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage in which there was a hearing before Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, and a decree for complainant. The only substantial question was one of fact, viz., whether the time of payment of the principal, which had been extended by agreement in writing until December 1st, 1937, had been further extended by parol for three years more. This question was tried out at the hearing, and decided adversely to the defendants. We have examined the evidence, and concur in the decision of the court below. Assuming that complainants were willing to extend the time on payment of $500 on account of principal, that condition was not met; and the Vice-Chancellor properly found that the payment of $200 not followed up by further payment, did not suffice to meet the terms stated by the mortgagees as a condition of extension.

The decree is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Paeker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Poetee, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*90 Per Curiam.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage in which there was a hearing before Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, and a decree for complainant. The only substantial question was one of fact, viz., whether the time of payment of the principal, which had been extended by agreement in writing until December 1st, 1937, had been further extended by parol for three years more. This question was tried out at the hearing, and decided adversely to the defendants. We have examined the evidence, and concur in the decision of the court below. Assuming that complainants were willing to extend the time on payment of $500 on account of principal, that condition was not met; and the Vice-Chancellor properly found that the payment of $200 not followed up by further payment, did not suffice to meet the terms stated by the mortgagees as a condition of extension.

The decree is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Paeker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Poetee, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.2d 11, 129 N.J. Eq. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertolino-v-belfatto-njsuperctappdiv-1941.