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..
« AnteriorContinuar » |