Merchants & Traders Realty Co. v. Stern

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Merchants & Traders Realty Co. v. Stern

140 A. 390, 102 N.J. Eq. 290, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 588

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 6, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 A. 390 (Merchants & Traders Realty Co. v. Stern) 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

Merchants & Traders Realty Co. v. Stern, 140 A. 390, 102 N.J. Eq. 290, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 588 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Black, J.

This is an appeal in a foreclosure suit from an order of the court of chancery dated October 3d, 1937. The order directs that the complainant is entitled to the moneys turned into court by the receiver, amounting to the sum of $3,331.53. The claimant, the Paramount Investment Corporation, claims that so much of such sum as was collected by the receiver for rents of the premises under foreclosure, Nos. 351 and 361 Main street, East Orange, New Jersey, after November 39th, 1936, the date on which the claimant’s taz certificate was recorded, to the date of redemption belongs to the claimant. The premises were sold to the claimant by the collector of taxes of East Orange for unpaid taxes on October 30tb, 1936. The tax certificate issued therefor was recorded in the office of *291 the register of Essex county in book B-59 of mortgages, page 560, on November 29th, 1926. Nothing else was done by the claimant to collect such rents, except on the same day to notify by letter the receiver, John A. Bernhard, of that fact. The claimant bases its claim upon the statute P. L. 1918 p. 892 § 34, as amended by P. L. 1926 p. 128. The tax lienor under the statute, it is argued, is preferred over the mortgagee. This section of the statute was construed and applied by this court in the recent case of Van Horn v. Huegel, 104 N. J. Law 106; 139 Atl. Rep. 28. That case held, the recording of the certificate is not in itself and alone sufficient to recover the rents. The right to possession must be asserted in some form.

That ease is directly in point. It disposes of this appeal adversely to the claimant. The order of the court of chancery is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yan Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Black, J.

This is an appeal in a foreclosure suit from an order of the court of chancery dated October 3d, 1937. The order directs that the complainant is entitled to the moneys turned into court by the receiver, amounting to the sum of $3,331.53. The claimant, the Paramount Investment Corporation, claims that so much of such sum as was collected by the receiver for rents of the premises under foreclosure, Nos. 351 and 361 Main street, East Orange, New Jersey, after November 39th, 1936, the date on which the claimant’s taz certificate was recorded, to the date of redemption belongs to the claimant. The premises were sold to the claimant by the collector of taxes of East Orange for unpaid taxes on October 30tb, 1936. The tax certificate issued therefor was recorded in the office of *291 the register of Essex county in book B-59 of mortgages, page 560, on November 29th, 1926. Nothing else was done by the claimant to collect such rents, except on the same day to notify by letter the receiver, John A. Bernhard, of that fact. The claimant bases its claim upon the statute P. L. 1918 p. 892 § 34, as amended by P. L. 1926 p. 128. The tax lienor under the statute, it is argued, is preferred over the mortgagee. This section of the statute was construed and applied by this court in the recent case of Van Horn v. Huegel, 104 N. J. Law 106; 139 Atl. Rep. 28. That case held, the recording of the certificate is not in itself and alone sufficient to recover the rents. The right to possession must be asserted in some form.

That ease is directly in point. It disposes of this appeal adversely to the claimant. The order of the court of chancery is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yan Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A. 390, 102 N.J. Eq. 290, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-traders-realty-co-v-stern-nj-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack