Pemberton Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Adams

Full title: PEMBERTON BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. ADAMS.

Court: COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Mar 6, 1895

53 N.J. Eq. 268 (Ch. Div. 1895)

31 A. 280

Opinion

03-06-1895

PEMBERTON BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. ADAMS.

Joseph H. Gaskill, for complainant. John W. Wharton, for defendant.

BIRD, V. C.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Bill by the Pemberton Building & Loan Association against George L. Adams. Decree for complainant.

Joseph H. Gaskill, for complainant.

John W. Wharton, for defendant.

BIRD, V. C. The principal question in this case is whether the defendant, George L. Adams, represented himself to be of age, and on such representations secured the loan of the moneys named in the mortgage. The evidence shows that when the parties were negotiating the person making the loan asked Adams if he was of age, to which Adams replied that he was. That such inquiry was made is not only established by the testimony of the person who made it, but by a bystander, who distinctly heard the inquiry, but did not hear the answer thereto, although he swears that something was said by way of reply. Adams says he made no representations concerning his age. I have no doubt but the inquiry was made, and that the answer was purposely false. It is equally clear that the statement that he was of age was relied upon; and that the loan would not have been made if the answer had been according to the fact. The law will hot, under such circumstances, allow a frauddoer to protect himself under the plea of infany. Jones, Mortg. § 631; Herm. Estop, p. 1232, §§ 1100, 1118; Id. p. 1253, § 119; Parker v. Hayes, 39 N. J. Eq. 478, 479; Id., 41 N. J. Eq. 631, 633, 7 Atl. 511; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 780, 945. In the next place, Adams, after coming of age, retained the possession of this property, and claimed and enjoyed all the benefits of a conveyance thereof, and now raises this defense of infancy without offering to return the consideration money. Under these circumstances, his liability continues, even though there had been no fraud. Jones, Mortg. §§ 104, 105; Herm. Estop, p. 1257, § 1121; 3 Wait, Act. & Def. 443, and many cases there cited; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 385. The complainant is entitled to a decree, with costs. I will so advise.