Laing v. Martin

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Laing v. Martin

26 N.J. Eq. 93

DecidedFebruary 15, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 26 N.J. Eq. 93 (Laing v. Martin) 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

Laing v. Martin, 26 N.J. Eq. 93 (N.J. Ct. App. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

This is a bill to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate in Berth Amboy. The answer sets up and claims the benefit of a payment of $60, alleged to have been made in November, 1870, by the mortgagor to the complainant, then the holder of the mortgage in suit, in consideration of an agreement to extend the time for payment of the principal of the mortgage until the 1st of September, 1871.

The mortgage, by its terms, had become due on the 1st ©f September, 1870. The evidence satisfies me, that the payment was made, and that it was made and received as a premium for such extension. The amount of it should be credited on the mortgage, as of the time when the payment was made. Nightingale v. Meginnis, 5 Vroom 461; Trusdell v. Jones, 8 C. E. Green 121, 554.

The 1 complainant is entitled to a decree, accordingly. There will be a reference to a master.

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

The Chancellor.

This is a bill to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate in Berth Amboy. The answer sets up and claims the benefit of a payment of $60, alleged to have been made in November, 1870, by the mortgagor to the complainant, then the holder of the mortgage in suit, in consideration of an agreement to extend the time for payment of the principal of the mortgage until the 1st of September, 1871.

The mortgage, by its terms, had become due on the 1st ©f September, 1870. The evidence satisfies me, that the payment was made, and that it was made and received as a premium for such extension. The amount of it should be credited on the mortgage, as of the time when the payment was made. Nightingale v. Meginnis, 5 Vroom 461; Trusdell v. Jones, 8 C. E. Green 121, 554.

The 1 complainant is entitled to a decree, accordingly. There will be a reference to a master.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.J. Eq. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laing-v-martin-njch-1875.