Tappan v. Redfield
5 N.J. Eq. 339
Opinion
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
Tappan v. Redfield, 5 N.J. Eq. 339 (N.J. Ct. App. 1846).
5 N.J. Eq. 339 (Tappan v. Redfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jackson ex dem. Gouch v. Wood
12 Johns. 73 (New York Supreme Court, 1815)
Van Ostrand v. Reed
1 Wend. 424 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)