Lozear v. Shields
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This was a hill to redeem. The property mortgaged had been owned by the mortgagee, and had been conveyed by him to the mortgagor, and the mortgage in question had been given by the latter to secure a part of the purchase money. Some time after the mortgage had fallen due, the mortgagor teildered the amount of the principal and interest to the mortgagee, who refused to receive it. The bill to redeem grew out of this refusal.
Read the full summary
This was a hill to redeem. The property mortgaged had been owned by the mortgagee, and had been conveyed by him to the mortgagor, and the mortgage in question had been given by the latter to secure a part of the purchase money. Some time after the mortgage had fallen due, the mortgagor teildered the amount of the principal and interest to the mortgagee, who refused to receive it. The bill to redeem grew out of this refusal. The mortgagee filed an answer, and exhibited a cross-bill, setting up that at the time of the conveyance of the premises, he was so far deprived of his reason that he was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The Chief Justice.
The Vice-Chancellor, who heard this case, decided against the defendant below, who is the appellant in this court.
The defence stood upon the ground that the transaction, embracing the sale of the property and the taking of the mortgage, was invalid, in consequence of the want of mental capacity in the appellant. Upon the opening of the matter here, this court considered the questions involved so clear of doubt that the counsel of the respondent was not called upon for a reply.
On the point of intellectual incompetency, which was the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stewart v. Harris Structural Steel Co., Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
- McCambridge v. DalyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
- Huber v. LiptakNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945