Investors Mortgage & Realty Co. v. Preakness Hills Realty Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Investors Mortgage & Realty Co. v. Preakness Hills Realty Co.

34 A.2d 1, 133 N.J. Eq. 615, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 482

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedSeptember 24, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.2d 1 (Investors Mortgage & Realty Co. v. Preakness Hills Realty Co.) 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

Investors Mortgage & Realty Co. v. Preakness Hills Realty Co., 34 A.2d 1, 133 N.J. Eq. 615, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 482 (N.J. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a foreclosure suit. Pursuant to a writ of fieri facias, the sheriff sold the mortgaged lands to complainant for $250. The amount due on the decree was approximately $221,000. The mortgage was given by the defendant corporation to secure the payment óf a joint bond made by it and twelve individuals, including the defendant Bloom. After the sale, the defendant corporation and Bloom interposed a petition setting forth that the sale price “is grossly insufficient and inadequate and does not represent the fair value” of the mortgaged lands, and praying, for certain specified reasons, that confirmation of the sale be withheld “unless and until the complainant shall credit on its decree the fair value of the mortgaged premises.”

Appellant contends that the petition fails to meet the requirements set down in the case of Young v. Weber, 117 N. J. Eq. 242, and that, moreover, Bloom “is disqualified from relief as a matter of law,” since he did not “sign the accompanying mortgage,” and “is not entitled to a credit for the fair value of the property” — citing Rosenwasser v. Weiss, 124. N. J. Eq. 14; and that “there was no finding on the disputed facts.”

Respondents maintain, inter alia, that the challenged order “does not settle the rights of the parties,” and “no harm has been done to appellant because there has been no determination that any amount is to be credited as fair value.” The point is well taken. We read the order as providing only for the ascertainment of the fair value of the mortgaged premises. The right to have such credit upon the decree in foreclosure is not determined. The equities have been expressly reserved; and respondents’ right to the relief sought is a subject for subsequent determination. Vide Rose v. Jerome- *617 Harvey Development Co., 115 N. J. Eq. 574. It was entirely proper for the Chancellor, at this stage of the proceeding, to inquire as to the fair market value of the lands, and to reserve the decision of all further questions.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heheb, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, Raeeerty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Hone.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a foreclosure suit. Pursuant to a writ of fieri facias, the sheriff sold the mortgaged lands to complainant for $250. The amount due on the decree was approximately $221,000. The mortgage was given by the defendant corporation to secure the payment óf a joint bond made by it and twelve individuals, including the defendant Bloom. After the sale, the defendant corporation and Bloom interposed a petition setting forth that the sale price “is grossly insufficient and inadequate and does not represent the fair value” of the mortgaged lands, and praying, for certain specified reasons, that confirmation of the sale be withheld “unless and until the complainant shall credit on its decree the fair value of the mortgaged premises.”

Appellant contends that the petition fails to meet the requirements set down in the case of Young v. Weber, 117 N. J. Eq. 242, and that, moreover, Bloom “is disqualified from relief as a matter of law,” since he did not “sign the accompanying mortgage,” and “is not entitled to a credit for the fair value of the property” — citing Rosenwasser v. Weiss, 124. N. J. Eq. 14; and that “there was no finding on the disputed facts.”

Respondents maintain, inter alia, that the challenged order “does not settle the rights of the parties,” and “no harm has been done to appellant because there has been no determination that any amount is to be credited as fair value.” The point is well taken. We read the order as providing only for the ascertainment of the fair value of the mortgaged premises. The right to have such credit upon the decree in foreclosure is not determined. The equities have been expressly reserved; and respondents’ right to the relief sought is a subject for subsequent determination. Vide Rose v. Jerome- *617 Harvey Development Co., 115 N. J. Eq. 574. It was entirely proper for the Chancellor, at this stage of the proceeding, to inquire as to the fair market value of the lands, and to reserve the decision of all further questions.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heheb, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, Raeeerty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.2d 1, 133 N.J. Eq. 615, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/investors-mortgage-realty-co-v-preakness-hills-realty-co-nj-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack