Best v. Schermier

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Best v. Schermier

6 N.J. Eq. 154

DecidedMarch 15, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 6 N.J. Eq. 154 (Best v. Schermier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Best v. Schermier, 6 N.J. Eq. 154 (N.J. Ct. App. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

I have uniformly denied applications to appoint a receiver of rents made on filing foreclosure bills. I have considered that the mortgagor is entitled to the rents while he is in possession by his tenants. I am satisfied that the contrary practice was inconsistent with what is now well understood to bo the nature of a mortgage, and led to great oppression. The view I had taken was sustained by the Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of Sanderson v. Price.

Schermier would not have been restrained from collecting the rents: and, he having assigned them to Ballentine and authorized him to collect them and apply them as payments on his mortgage, I see no reason why Ballentine should not be permitted to collect them.

The order appointing a receiver of the rents and restraining Ballentine from collecting them will be vacated.

Order accordingly.

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

The Chancellor.

I have uniformly denied applications to appoint a receiver of rents made on filing foreclosure bills. I have considered that the mortgagor is entitled to the rents while he is in possession by his tenants. I am satisfied that the contrary practice was inconsistent with what is now well understood to bo the nature of a mortgage, and led to great oppression. The view I had taken was sustained by the Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of Sanderson v. Price.

Schermier would not have been restrained from collecting the rents: and, he having assigned them to Ballentine and authorized him to collect them and apply them as payments on his mortgage, I see no reason why Ballentine should not be permitted to collect them.

The order appointing a receiver of the rents and restraining Ballentine from collecting them will be vacated.

Order accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.J. Eq. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-schermier-njch-1847.