Hulfish v. O'Brien

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Hulfish v. O'Brien

20 N.J. Eq. 230

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedOctober 15, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 N.J. Eq. 230 (Hulfish v. O'Brien) 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

Hulfish v. O'Brien, 20 N.J. Eq. 230 (N.J. Ct. App. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

It has been decided in this court repeatedly, by three of my predecessors, that a defect of title to mortgaged premises conveyed by the mortgagee, is no defence in a suit for the foreclosure of a mortgage for part of the consideration. 'Chancellor Vroom so held, in Harrison v. Marselis, Saxt. 426; Chancellor Pennington, in Van Waggoner v. McEwen, 1 Green's C. R. 412, and Chancellor Williamson, in Glenn’s Admr's v. Whipple, 1 Beasley 50. Such has been the uniform doctrine of this court, and it is in accord with the decisions of other states. Davison v. De Freest, 3 Sandf. C. R. 456; Miller v. Avery, 4 Barb. C. R. 582; Bumpus v. [231]*231Platner, 1 J. C. R. 218; Withers v. Morrell, 3 Edw. 560; Tallmadge v. Wallis, 25 Wend. 107. And it is fully adopted by the Court of Errors, in New York, in Edwards v. Bodine, 26 Wend. 109, on an appeal in a foreclosure case.

The exceptions to the master’s report must be overruled.

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

The Chancellor.

It has been decided in this court repeatedly, by three of my predecessors, that a defect of title to mortgaged premises conveyed by the mortgagee, is no defence in a suit for the foreclosure of a mortgage for part of the consideration. 'Chancellor Vroom so held, in Harrison v. Marselis, Saxt. 426; Chancellor Pennington, in Van Waggoner v. McEwen, 1 Green's C. R. 412, and Chancellor Williamson, in Glenn’s Admr's v. Whipple, 1 Beasley 50. Such has been the uniform doctrine of this court, and it is in accord with the decisions of other states. Davison v. De Freest, 3 Sandf. C. R. 456; Miller v. Avery, 4 Barb. C. R. 582; Bumpus v. [231]*231Platner, 1 J. C. R. 218; Withers v. Morrell, 3 Edw. 560; Tallmadge v. Wallis, 25 Wend. 107. And it is fully adopted by the Court of Errors, in New York, in Edwards v. Bodine, 26 Wend. 109, on an appeal in a foreclosure case.

The exceptions to the master’s report must be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.J. Eq. 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulfish-v-obrien-njch-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack