Tappan v. Redfield

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Tappan v. Redfield

5 N.J. Eq. 339

DecidedMarch 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 5 N.J. Eq. 339 (Tappan v. Redfield) 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

Tappan v. Redfield, 5 N.J. Eq. 339 (N.J. Ct. App. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

It is not necessary to inquire, whether this verbal authority is sufficiently proved; or whether, if the authority was sufficient, the mortgage was properly executed under it. The mortgage cannot be valid as against Russ. A freehold interest in land cannot.pass by parol: 2 Black. Com. 297, 312; 12 John. Rep. 73; and an authority from the owner to another to execute for him, and in his absence, a deed for such an interest, must be by deed: 1 Wend. 424; 5 Munro, 188; Com. Dig. Attorney, c. 1, 65.

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

The Chancellor.

It is not necessary to inquire, whether this verbal authority is sufficiently proved; or whether, if the authority was sufficient, the mortgage was properly executed under it. The mortgage cannot be valid as against Russ. A freehold interest in land cannot.pass by parol: 2 Black. Com. 297, 312; 12 John. Rep. 73; and an authority from the owner to another to execute for him, and in his absence, a deed for such an interest, must be by deed: 1 Wend. 424; 5 Munro, 188; Com. Dig. Attorney, c. 1, 65.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.J. Eq. 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tappan-v-redfield-njch-1846.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack