Hamill v. Inventors' Manufacturing Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On motion to strike out so much of the answer as reserves exceptions and denies combinations and confederacy, against the provisions of rule 214; also to strike out the entire answer, and for a decree that the mortgage of complainant is a prior lien to that of Blake. The bill is filed by Hamill to foreclose a mortgage made to him on March 14th, 1894, by the Inventors’ Manufacturing Company, the then owners of the mortgaged premises.
Read the full summary
On motion to strike out so much of the answer as reserves exceptions and denies combinations and confederacy, against the provisions of rule 214; also to strike out the entire answer, and for a decree that the mortgage of complainant is a prior lien to that of Blake. The bill is filed by Hamill to foreclose a mortgage made to him on March 14th, 1894, by the Inventors’ Manufacturing Company, the then owners of the mortgaged premises. The bill then sets out that the premises were formerly owned by-Jesse Lake and Daniel L. Risley, and that they, while such owners, on April 16th, 1883, gave a…
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, V. C.
The first objection taken to the answer must prevail, as this part of the pleading is prohibited by rule 214.
The general motion to strike out the entire answer as containing no defence to the facts set up in the bill raises a question of importance.
The ground upon which the mortgage by Lake to Blake (which will hereafter be called the Blake mortgage) is sought to be subordinated to the mortgage made to Iiamill by the Inventors’ Manufacturing Company (which mortgage will be called the Hamill mortgage), as has been already stated, is that this mortgage having come to the hands of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pitman v. ConnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1866
- Devlin v. CollierSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1891