Chester v. King
Henry Chester v. Joseph R. King and others
Chester v. King, 2 N.J. Eq. 405 (1841)
Headnotes
A mortgagor who has parted with all his interest in the mortgaged premises, Is a proper, though not a necessary party to a bill for foreclosure.
Summary
The complainant filed his bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by Joseph R. King, one of tiie defendants, to the complainant. The bill states, that after the execution of the mortgage, the mortgagor conveyed the mortgaged premises in fee to George Gaskiii, who is also a defendant in the bill. To this bill the defendant demurred, assiguing for cause of demurrer, that it appearing upon the face of the bill that the mortgagor bad parted with all his interest in the mortgaged premises, he is not a proper party to the bill.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The Chancellor.
The mortgagor who has parted with the ¡equity of redemption is not a necessary party to a bill for foreclosure ; but if the complainant thinks proper to make him a party, ihe has a right so to do, and the bill is not demurrable for that .cause. He is a proper party, although not an indispensable one.
Demurrer overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.