Ziembinski v. Wasniewski

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ziembinski v. Wasniewski

137 A. 920, 101 N.J. Eq. 311, 16 Stock. 311, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 587

DecidedMay 16, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A. 920 (Ziembinski v. Wasniewski) 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

Ziembinski v. Wasniewski, 137 A. 920, 101 N.J. Eq. 311, 16 Stock. 311, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 587 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The learned vice-chancellor first heard and decided the case on the pleadings. The correctness of that decision does not seem to be questioned now, and, apparently, was not questioned at the time. The complainant obtained a reopening of the case in order to prove, if he could, that the original grantee of the mortgagor had actual notice of the mortgage, then unrecorded, to foreclose, which this suit was brought. On this point the vice-chancellor heard evidence fully, and decided, as a matter of fact, that the evidence failed to satisfy him that such grantee had notice. That was the crux of the case. On this- appeal it is argued that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is to the contrary of the court’s finding. We have examined the evidence and conclude that it adequately supports the conclusion of the vice-chancellor.

The decree will therefore be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Curiam.

The learned vice-chancellor first heard and decided the case on the pleadings. The correctness of that decision does not seem to be questioned now, and, apparently, was not questioned at the time. The complainant obtained a reopening of the case in order to prove, if he could, that the original grantee of the mortgagor had actual notice of the mortgage, then unrecorded, to foreclose, which this suit was brought. On this point the vice-chancellor heard evidence fully, and decided, as a matter of fact, that the evidence failed to satisfy him that such grantee had notice. That was the crux of the case. On this- appeal it is argued that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is to the contrary of the court’s finding. We have examined the evidence and conclude that it adequately supports the conclusion of the vice-chancellor.

The decree will therefore be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A. 920, 101 N.J. Eq. 311, 16 Stock. 311, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziembinski-v-wasniewski-nj-1927.