Legal Opinion

Ventnor Investment & Realty Co. v. Record Development Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided July 14, 1911PublishedCited by 9 opinions

On bill, &C.

1Opinion of the Court

Teaming, V. C.

1 am convinced tliat the several cross-complainants, who, as purchasers of lots forming part of the mortgaged premises, seek to avail themselves of the benefit of the covenant touching releases contained in complainant’s mortgage, are entitled to the relief sought b3r them.

In reaching this conclusion, I think it unnecessary to attempt to define any general rule to control cases of this class. As it is clearly within the power of a mortgagor and mortgagee to covenant that releases may be procured by the vendees of the mortgagor and that such releases may be procured by purchasers…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Vawter v. CraftsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  2. Gammel v. GoodeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
  3. Lane v. AllenIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Bartlett Estate Co. v. Fairhaven Land Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Baldwin v. BenedictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Higgins v. MispethNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
  2. Malba Terrace Corp. v. Portaupeck PropertiesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  3. Bruen v. SpannhakeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
  4. Dimeo v. EllensteinNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  5. Hagaman v. FrederickNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API