Ehnes v. Hronis

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ehnes v. Hronis

18 A.2d 39, 125 N.J.L. 625, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 237

DecidedFebruary 7, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.2d 39 (Ehnes v. Hronis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ehnes v. Hronis, 18 A.2d 39, 125 N.J.L. 625, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 237 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Bodine, J.

The appeal is from a judgment of no cause of action. The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note and upon the condition contained in a chattel mortgage securing the same. The note was admittedly barred by the statute of limitations.

Had there been a covenant in the mortgage to pay the note, the circumstance that the suit on the note was barred by the *626 statute of limitations would be no defense to an action on the covenant. Lembech & Betz Eagle Brewing Co. v. Krause, 94 N. J. L. 219. But there was no covenant in the chattel mortgage in suit. There was but a condition avoiding the conveyance upon the payment of the debt. This is not a covenant under seal to pay the debt. Hence, there could have been no other ruling than that of the learned trial judge. Gottfried Krueger Brewing Co. v. Remek, 110 Id. 489.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Bodine, J.

The appeal is from a judgment of no cause of action. The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note and upon the condition contained in a chattel mortgage securing the same. The note was admittedly barred by the statute of limitations.

Had there been a covenant in the mortgage to pay the note, the circumstance that the suit on the note was barred by the *626 statute of limitations would be no defense to an action on the covenant. Lembech & Betz Eagle Brewing Co. v. Krause, 94 N. J. L. 219. But there was no covenant in the chattel mortgage in suit. There was but a condition avoiding the conveyance upon the payment of the debt. This is not a covenant under seal to pay the debt. Hence, there could have been no other ruling than that of the learned trial judge. Gottfried Krueger Brewing Co. v. Remek, 110 Id. 489.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.2d 39, 125 N.J.L. 625, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehnes-v-hronis-nj-1941.