Goldenstein v. Marlboro Construction Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Goldenstein v. Marlboro Construction Co.

145 A. 2, 7 N.J. Misc. 185, 1929 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 162

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedMarch 2, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 145 A. 2 (Goldenstein v. Marlboro Construction Co.) 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

Goldenstein v. Marlboro Construction Co., 145 A. 2, 7 N.J. Misc. 185, 1929 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 162 (N.J. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Baches, Y. C.

Crouse, a subsequent judgment creditor, attacks the priority of the mortgage under foreslosure on the ground that the execution of the mortgage, given by a corporation, was not properly proved, was therefore improperly recorded, and, hence, was not constructive notice. The mortgage was recorded May 23d, 1927; the judgment was recovered March 19th, 1928. Crouse purchased the premises under execution of his judgment. The certificate of proof of the execution of the mortgage is irregular, but that it is insufficient need not be passed upon for it conclusively appears that the judgment creditor had actual notice. In the suit in which his judgment was recovered, on a mechanics’ lien claim, he made the complainant a party and in the complaint recited the mortgage. Our recording acts invalidate unrecorded, and, of course, improperly recorded mortgages only as to subsequent judgment creditors without actual notice of the mortgage. Comp. Slat., pp. 1553, 3414; Brinton v. Scull, 55 N. J. Eq. 747; Majewski v. Greenberg, 5 N. J. Adv. R. 566. The priority of the mortgage is established. There will be a reference.

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

Baches, Y. C.

Crouse, a subsequent judgment creditor, attacks the priority of the mortgage under foreslosure on the ground that the execution of the mortgage, given by a corporation, was not properly proved, was therefore improperly recorded, and, hence, was not constructive notice. The mortgage was recorded May 23d, 1927; the judgment was recovered March 19th, 1928. Crouse purchased the premises under execution of his judgment. The certificate of proof of the execution of the mortgage is irregular, but that it is insufficient need not be passed upon for it conclusively appears that the judgment creditor had actual notice. In the suit in which his judgment was recovered, on a mechanics’ lien claim, he made the complainant a party and in the complaint recited the mortgage. Our recording acts invalidate unrecorded, and, of course, improperly recorded mortgages only as to subsequent judgment creditors without actual notice of the mortgage. Comp. Slat., pp. 1553, 3414; Brinton v. Scull, 55 N. J. Eq. 747; Majewski v. Greenberg, 5 N. J. Adv. R. 566. The priority of the mortgage is established. There will be a reference.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A. 2, 7 N.J. Misc. 185, 1929 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldenstein-v-marlboro-construction-co-njch-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack