From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pamrapau Corp. v. Bayonne

Court of Chancery
Aug 15, 1939
8 A.2d 908 (N.J. 1939)

Opinion

Decided August 15th, 1939.

1. Defendant corporation proposes by its amended answer to plead that complainant does not have title to the premises in question, and claims that it did not set up this defense in its original answer because it was misled by a recital in the preamble of the deed given by the defendant municipality to complainant's grantor. Application to file an amended answer denied; an examination of the records in the county register's office would have disclosed the chain of title, but defendant did not examine these records until after its original answer was stricken.

2. Defendant corporation claims that the defendant municipality sold the land in question to complainant's grantor without public advertisement and sale to the highest bidder, as required by P.L. 1917 c. 152 ( R.S. 40:60-26). Even though this be so, the sale was validated by remedial legislation. P.L. 1926 c. 304; P.L. 1930 c. 109; P.L. 1938 c. 63.

On bill, c.

Messrs. Gross Gross, for the complainant.

Messrs. Tiffany Massarsky, for the defendants.


The defendant Central District, Inc., asks leave to open a decree pro confesso for the purpose of filing an answer. The answer originally filed was stricken out.

This defendant proposes by its amended answer to plead that complainant has not title to the premises which are the subject-matter of this suit. Defendant says that the city of Bayonne sold the property in 1923 to one O'Brien, complainant's grantor. A preamble in the deed to O'Brien recites that the premises were acquired by the city by reason of a tax sale. Defendant says that this was not the fact; that the sale to O'Brien was not made after public advertisement and to the highest bidder as required by P.L. 1917 c. 152 ( R.S. 1937, 40:60-26).

Even though this be so, the sale was validated by remedial legislation. P.L. 1926 c. 304; P.L. 1930 c. 109; P.L. 1938 c. 63.

Defendant claims that it did not set up the above defense in its original answer for the reason that it was misled by the above mentioned preamble in the deed to O'Brien. An examination of the records in the Hudson county register's office would have disclosed the chain of title. Defendant did not examine the records until after the answer was stricken out.

Since the case is now at issue and since the city afterward approved the disputed conveyance by resolution, in accordance with the statute, the application will be denied.


Summaries of

Pamrapau Corp. v. Bayonne

Court of Chancery
Aug 15, 1939
8 A.2d 908 (N.J. 1939)
Case details for

Pamrapau Corp. v. Bayonne

Case Details

Full title:PAMRAPAU CORPORATION, complainant, v. CITY OF BAYONNE and the CENTRAL…

Court:Court of Chancery

Date published: Aug 15, 1939

Citations

8 A.2d 908 (N.J. 1939)
8 A.2d 908

Citing Cases

Pamrapau Corp. v. Bayonne

An appeal was taken to the Court of Errors and Appeals and the order of this court affirmed on the opinion…

Pamrapau Corp. v. Bayonne

They were before this court twice before, and each time the conclusion reached was affirmed. See 126 N.J. Eq.…