TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Turner v. Ridge Heights Land Co.

Edward J. Turner, trustee, &c. v. Ridge Heights Land Company

Turner v. Ridge Heights Land Co., 114 A. 418 (N.J. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 20, 1921
Judges
Affirmance, Bergen, Black, Curtam, Ieppeniieimer, Iite, Iyalisci, Katzenbach, Minturn, Parker, Reversal, Swatze, Trenciiaed, Williams
Citations
114 A. 41892 N.J. Eq. 7067 Stock. 7061921 N.J. LEXIS 260
Summary
On appeal from a decree in chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson, whose opinion is reported in 92 N. J. Eq. 64.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Curtam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curtam.

The complainants filed their bill to foreclose a mortgage made by the Ridge Heights Land Company to Andrew H. Brinkerhoif, trustee, and afterwards assigned by him to Turner, one of the complainants, as trustee for the Rutherford Natioual Bank. The bill was. dismissed upon the ground that the mortgage had been given as collateral security for the payment of a promissory note of the land company, which was made by it for the accommodation of a corporation- known as the Addison-Ely Company; and that this note had been paid and satisfied before the filing of the bill. The material facts in the case are accurately set out in the opinion of the learned vice-chancellor and fully support the conclusions reached by him, for the reasons stated in that opinion, to which we have nothing to add.

The latter part of this opinion, however, is devoted to a consideration of what would have been the status of complainants’ mortgage, in case it had been adjudged an existing encumbrance upon the mortgaged premises, with relation to the liens of certain junior encumbrancers who had been made parties to the bill. Holding, as we do, that- the lien of the complainants’ mort *707 gage was discharged by the payment of the note which it was given to secure, this question has become purely academic, and, consequently, has not received consideration by us.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Swatze, Trenciiaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Iyalisci-i, Black, Katzenbach, Wi-iite, I-Ieppeniieimer, Williams—12. For ■ reversal—N one.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Corradini v. v. & M. HOLDING CORP.112 A.2d 603 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Corradini v. v. & M. HOLDING CORP.112 A.2d 603 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list