From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexander v. Manza

Court of Errors and Appeals
Sep 3, 1948
61 A.2d 53 (N.J. 1948)

Opinion

Argued May 26th, 1948.

Decided September 3d 1948.

On bill for discovery in aid of an execution at law issued upon a judgment for a deficiency arising from the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure a bond, defendants may not plead inability to protect themselves by bidding the fair value of the lands at the foreclosure sale, that complainant was the purchaser and the lands are now and have always been worth more than the amount remaining due on the bond and mortgage, and that defendants are in equity entitled to credit for the true value and to a dismissal of the bill because such credit would exceed the amount of the judgment. Natovitz v. Bay Head Realty Co., 142 N.J. Eq. 456, followed.

On appeals from orders of the Court of Chancery.

Mr. Irving I. Jacobs, for the appellant.

Messrs. Milton, McNulty Augelli ( Mr. Anthony T. Augelli, of counsel), for the respondents Aniel A. Manza et al.

Messrs. Morrison, Lloyd Griggs ( Mr. John W. Griggs and Mr. William J. Morrison, Jr., of counsel), for the respondents Alexander A. Lincoln and Mary Noyes Lincoln.


The bill is for discovery in aid of an execution at law issued upon a judgment for a deficiency arising from the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure a bond. The answers allege the inability of defendants to protect themselves by bidding the fair value of the lands at the foreclosure sale; that complainant was the purchaser, and the lands are now and have always been worth more than the amount remaining due on the bond and mortgage; and that defendants are in equity and good conscience entitled to credit for the true value of the lands, and to a dismissal of the bill because such credit would exceed the amount of the judgment. The appeals are from the denial of motions to strike out the defenses thus pleaded. This judicial action was erroneous.

The case is ruled by Natovitz v. Bay Head Realty Co., 142 N.J. Eq. 456. In the respects indicated the answers are exceptionable.

The orders are accordingly reversed, with costs; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

For affirmance — SCHETTINO, J. 1.

For reversal — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, BURLING, JACOBS, WELLS, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN, JJ. 13.


Summaries of

Alexander v. Manza

Court of Errors and Appeals
Sep 3, 1948
61 A.2d 53 (N.J. 1948)
Case details for

Alexander v. Manza

Case Details

Full title:ELSIE ALEXANDER, complainant-appellant, v. ANIEL A. MANZA et al.…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Sep 3, 1948

Citations

61 A.2d 53 (N.J. 1948)
61 A.2d 53