Eisenberg v. Plainfield Savings Bank

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Eisenberg v. Plainfield Savings Bank

51 A.2d 123, 139 N.J. Eq. 307, 1947 N.J. LEXIS 454

DecidedFebruary 4, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.2d 123 (Eisenberg v. Plainfield Savings Bank) 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

Eisenberg v. Plainfield Savings Bank, 51 A.2d 123, 139 N.J. Eq. 307, 1947 N.J. LEXIS 454 (N.J. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor. The delinquent taxes *308 were paid before the filing of a bill to foreclose the mortgage, and before the mortgagee suffered any loss or impairment of his security.

Eespondent was given leave, on his motion, to print the pleadings, exhibits and other matter which he asserted were improperly omitted from the state of the case submitted by appellant, subject to the ruling of the court on the hearing of the cause on the merits as to the necessity therefor. We conclude such necessity existed, and that the cost thereof should be borne by appellant, and included in the taxed bill of costs.

For affirmance — Parker, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Colie, Waci-ienbeld, Eastwood, Wells, Baeeerty, Dill, Freund, JJ. 12.

For reversal — Ti-ie Chieb-Justice, McG-eehan, McLean, JJ. 3.

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

Per Curiam.

The decree is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor. The delinquent taxes *308 were paid before the filing of a bill to foreclose the mortgage, and before the mortgagee suffered any loss or impairment of his security.

Eespondent was given leave, on his motion, to print the pleadings, exhibits and other matter which he asserted were improperly omitted from the state of the case submitted by appellant, subject to the ruling of the court on the hearing of the cause on the merits as to the necessity therefor. We conclude such necessity existed, and that the cost thereof should be borne by appellant, and included in the taxed bill of costs.

For affirmance — Parker, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Colie, Waci-ienbeld, Eastwood, Wells, Baeeerty, Dill, Freund, JJ. 12.

For reversal — Ti-ie Chieb-Justice, McG-eehan, McLean, JJ. 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.2d 123, 139 N.J. Eq. 307, 1947 N.J. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenberg-v-plainfield-savings-bank-nj-1947.