BONA FIDE PURCHASERS-Continued.
office three days before the sale. The sale was duly confirmed
without objections or exceptions.-Held, that the purchaser was
a bona fide purchaser. STATE MUTUAL B. AND L. ASSOCIATION
v. O'CALLAGHAN.
BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS-An applicant to a
loan association for a $40,000 loan was informed as to the terms
under which loans were made, which were that applicants, on
being accepted, became stockholders, required to pay fees for the
stocks, monthly dues and premiums. He was informed that the
initial payment for premiums and fees would be $1,000. He
accepted the terms and received $39,000.-Held, that $1,000
originally deducted from the loan was a voluntary payment by
the applicant, and hence he was not entitled to any credit there-
for, either on account of principal or interest. STATE MUTUAL
B. AND L. ASSOCIATION v. O'CALLAGHAN....
See FORECLOSURE, 3.
BUILDINGS-See COVENANTS; MECHANICS' LIENS; NUISANCE,
1-7; TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, 2-6.
Anderson . Anderson Food Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 209.
Atlantic City v. New Auditorium Pier Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 284.
Reversed
Blair v. Scribner, 65 N. J. Eq. 498.
Brady v. Carteret Realty Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 243.
Catholic Benevolent Legion v. Murphy, 65 N. J. Eq. 60.
Charlton v. Columbia Real Estate Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 631.
De Gray v. Monmouth Beach Club House Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 329.
Affirmed
Evans v. New Auditorium Pier Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 315.
In re Vineland Historical and Antiquarian Society, 66 N. J.
CASES CRITICISED-Continued.
International Silver Co. v. Rogers Corporation, 66 N. J. Eq. 119.
Reversed
International Silver Co. v. Rogers Corporation, 66 N. J. Eq. 140.
State Mutual Building Loan Association r. Batterson, 65 N.
CHARITIES 1. Words seemingly appropriate to a condition only
may introduce a covenant, a condition or a declaration of trust.
and the whole clause, in its form and scope, must be considered
in order to determine within which class it should fall. MAC-
KENZIE . TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERY OF JERSEY CITY.. ... 652
All of the words in the clause in question being considered,
and the absence of words of determination or reverter being
noticed, the intent of the parties, to be exercised as permitted
by the principles of law, will be best subserved by holding the
clause to be a declaration of trust.
The trust which is thus declared is for public worship and
instruction for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons,
according to Presbyterian faith and polity, with certain added
provisions, now not to be weighed; nevertheless, the trust ap-
pears to be good, as a charity, in both its primary and secondary
limitations. Id.....
Such a trust is enforceable, in this state, either exactly or
under the doctrine of cy pres, approximately. Id.....
- Upon their own showing, the present complainants have no
standing in court by right of a reverter, or as being in themselves
possible beneficiaries, or under the doctrine of visitation; only
the attorney-general, by way of information, or the presbytery,
by bill exhibited by and through the body charged with the duties
of trusteeship, can properly invoke the superintending power of
the courts over the administration of the trust. Id..
The decree of the court of chancery must be reversed, and
the bill should be dismissed. Id....
CHATTEL MORTGAGES-1. Under an involuntary assignment
the receiver or assignee may set aside a chattel mortgage for
fraud, or for the neglect of the mortgagee to have it recorded
according to the requirement of the statute. WIMPFHEIMER
T. PERRINE
2. By virtue of the ninth section of the Chattel Mortgage act
of May 2d, 1885, the mortgagee will have priority over all cred-
itors of the mortgagor, where the debt or obligation is incurred
after the mortgage is recorded, although it is not recorded im-
mediately. Id..
- Where there is a voluntary assignment by the mortgagor
for the equal benefit of creditors the assignee may set aside the
chattel mortgage given by the mortgagor, when it is fraudulent,
to the extent that the property is needed for the payment of
debts, but he cannot intervene to set it aside when it is given in
good faith for value, because the mortgagee has failed to record
it as the statute requires. Id.....
Creditors of the mortgagor who have claims in their own
right before the chattel mortgage is recorded, or who acquire by
assignment claims which accrued before the mortgage is recorded,
will be entitled to priority over the mortgagee, and may on re-
covery of judgment assert their rights, notwithstanding a volun-
tary assignment by the mortgagor for the equal benefit of cred-
itors. Id..
CHECKS-See BILLS AND NOTES.
CONSIDERATION—See BANKRUPTCY; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE,
CONTRACTS-See GAMING; GAS COMPANIES; MUNICIPAL COR-
PORATIONS, 1; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 1, 2, 11-13.
CORPORATIONS-1. A corporation incorporated to conduct a bus-
iness apparently in competition with that of an inventor and a
corporation already using his name, incorporated his surname in
its own, basing its rights to use the same on an alleged grant
from his son, but it was apparent that it sought the use thereof
on account of the great prestige attached thereto, and not on
account of any connection with the son or prestige connected
with his name.-Held, that the son had no right to make such
grant. EDISON STORAGE BATTERY Co. v. EDISON AUTOMOBILE
Co.
2. An injunction forbidding certain corporations to enter into
an amalgamation agreement whereby the property of one was to
be taken by the issuance of stock in the other, does not affect the
right of the stockholders of such corporations to negotiate an
agreement to accomplish the same end without issuing stock
illegally. PIERCE v. OLD DOMINION, &C., SMELTING CO....... 399
An injunction will not issue to prevent two corporations
from entering into a contract on the sole ground that a minority
of the directors of one of the contracting corporations owns stock
in a third corporation which owns stock in the other contracting
corporation. Id.....
The court will not prevent two corporations having friendly
relations (a third corporation holding a majority of the stock of
each of them) from contracting with each other until it appears
that the proposed contract is inequitable or unfair. Id........ 399
See GAS COMPANIES; INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS.
COSTS Sce INJUNCTION, 10; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 8.
COURTS-Where a case presented in the chancery court is substan-
tially like a former case carried from such court to the court of
errors and appeals, the chancery court is bound to follow such
decision in the court of errors and appeals in the second case,
though questions are raised which were not considered in the
former suit. BALLOU v. UNITED STATES FLOUR MILLING Co... 189
COVENANTS-1. Many owners of beach front lands covenanted.
under seal, that Atlantic City might locate a boardwalk across
their several ownerships at the ocean edge, with aiding covenants
against the erection of buildings on its ocean side in order to
secure light, air and view of the ocean from the boardwalk.
Possession of the locus was given to the city, and the boardwalk
was visibly in process of construction, in large size and at great
expense, when one of the covenantors conveyed his lot on which
the boardwalk had been erected to a grantee, who recorded his
deed before the covenant with the city for the way was recorded.
This grantee and his assigns accepted and used the boardwalk
improvement and its privilege of ocean view secured by the
aiding covenants of the deed for several years, but afterwards
attempted to erect a building on the ocean side of the boardwalk,
which was in breach of those covenants.-Held, the open and
notorious possession of the way and the construction thereon of
a visible and peculiar improvement (the boardwalk) was notice
to the grantees who first recorded their deed of the right of the
city to the way for a boardwalk, and of the aiding covenant
against building oceanward therefrom, and that the erection of
buildings in breach of the latter covenant will be enjoined. AT-
LANTIC CITY v. NEW AUDITORIUM PIER Co................
If the deed to the city failed to pass an estate in the right
of way for want of words of grant, it yet operated as a covenant
between the signers and the city that each owner would sur-
render to the city his portion of the way and be bound not to
build on the ocean side of the boardwalk, in consideration that
the city would erect the boardwalk improvement. When, under
such a covenant, possession of the way has been delivered to the
city, and it has erected the boardwalk improvement, which has
been accepted and used by the signers of the covenant for several
years, a grantee of one of the covenantors will be restrained if
he attempts to build on the ocean side of the boardwalk, in
breach of one of the covenants securing light, air and view from
the boardwalk. Id......
Such a covenant is also, as between the signers thereof, a
general scheme of public improvement, by which each surrenders
his portion of the way in consideration of the surrender made by
the other signers of their portions, for the benefit of the public
and of themselves as owners of land fronting on the right of
way. Any owner who so builds on the ocean side of the board-
walk as to shut out the view of the sea therefrom, may be re-
strained at the suit of any other owner who has contributed land
to the common purpose, unless the building erected is a pier
within the meaning of the proviso of that covenant. Id....... 284
That proviso authorizes an owner to erect but one pier.
When that has been done, no lateral additions thereto can after-
wards be made. Id.....
Where an owner of land bordering on high-water mark con-
veyed the same by a deed containing a covenant against the
erection of any building nearer than twenty-seven feet to a cer-
tain street, this restriction did not apply to lands subsequently
added by natural accretion to that conveyed. EVANS v. NEW
AUDITORIUM PIER CO.. . . .
Where several owners of lots fronting on a beach joined in
a deed granting to a city an easement in a strip of land several
miles long, and passing over the property of a great many differ-
ent owners, to be used for a walk, with a covenant that no build-
ing should be erected on the ocean side, one of the co-grantors
was entitled to restrain one of the other grantors from building
a structure on the ocean side of the walk on land which the
latter grantor had, subsequent to the covenant, acquired from
the state. Id..
|