From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graham v. Donohue

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Nov 8, 1897
38 A. 857 (Ch. Div. 1897)

Opinion

11-08-1897

GRAHAM v. DONOHUE et al.

William T. Hoffman, for the motion. Leon Abbett, opposed.


Suit by Cordelia Graham against James Donohue and others to foreclose a mortgage. On motion of defendant John Sullivan to open the decree and grant a rehearing. Rule refused.

William T. Hoffman, for the motion.

Leon Abbett, opposed.

REED, V. C. The application is made on behalf of John Sullivan, who was in possession of the mortgaged premises at the time this bill for foreclosure was filed, and on that account was made a party to the suit. The only defendant who filed an answer is James Donohue, who held the legal title to the mortgaged premises, and who was the mortgagor. So far as appears upon the record, John Sullivan had no interest in the property at the time of the execution of the mortgage, and is a party to the suit because he had a naked possession of the premises when the bill was filed. He now wishes an opportunity to prove that the mortgage was made without consideration. He also says in his petition that he had some equitable interest in the property at the time the mortgage was executed. Under the circumstances, I cannot make even a rule to show cause upon the present petition. The defendant was in laches long before the hearing of the want of adequate notice of which he complains. He had no answer on file when the hearing occurred. Although his counsel were notified of the hearing, and did not appear, they never afterwards inquired whether the hearing had taken place, or had been adjourned, although several weeks elapsed between the time of the hearing and the signing of the decree. He seems to have relied upon the answer of Donohue as a ground for making a defense; but Donohue's answer sets up that the mortgage was paid, and does not hint at any want of original consideration. The petition sets up no facts to show his interest in the property originally, nor how it happened that, after 16 years has elapsed, and after interest has been paid upon it,—a part by the petitioner himself,—the defense of no consideration for the mortgage is now set up for the first time. The rule is refused.


Summaries of

Graham v. Donohue

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Nov 8, 1897
38 A. 857 (Ch. Div. 1897)
Case details for

Graham v. Donohue

Case Details

Full title:GRAHAM v. DONOHUE et al.

Court:COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Nov 8, 1897

Citations

38 A. 857 (Ch. Div. 1897)

Citing Cases

Gray v. S. T. Woodring Lumber

It seems we are justified in holding, further, that the judgment against plaintiff below must be sustained…