Legal Opinion

Field v. Thistle

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided July 24, 1899PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On bill, &c. Heard on bill, answers, replication and oral j> roofs. '

1Opinion of the Court

Emery, V. C.

This is a bill for deficiency filed by the mortgagee against-Thistle, the obligor and mortgagor, and against the successive-grantees of the mortgaged premises, being Royle, Bray and McChesney, in the order named, who have, it is claimed,, assumed.the payment of the mortgage in their respective deeds. The mortgaged property was sold under foreclosure proceedings,, to which the mortgagor and the grantees were parties defendant, and a deficiency of over $900 exists. On the day before the-sale Thistle, the mortgagor, released his grantee, Mrs. Royle, from her covenant of assumption,…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hoeldtke v. HorstmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
  2. Hubard & Appleby, Inc. v. ThackerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1922
  3. Fid. Union Trust v. Gerber Bros.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938
  4. Fisk v. WuenschNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
  5. Camden Trust Co. v. HandleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API