Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Carteret Steel Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On exceptions to master’s report in a foreclosure suit. On January 10th, 1898, the Carteret Steel Company owned an undivided interest in property in Morris county known as the Copperas Mine Tract, which, it mortgaged to the complainant as trustee to secure an issue of bonds aggregating $100,000. The mortgage contained a provision that it should cover after-acquired property, and a note of this provision was inserted in the bonds secured thereby.
Read the full summary
On exceptions to master’s report in a foreclosure suit. On January 10th, 1898, the Carteret Steel Company owned an undivided interest in property in Morris county known as the Copperas Mine Tract, which, it mortgaged to the complainant as trustee to secure an issue of bonds aggregating $100,000. The mortgage contained a provision that it should cover after-acquired property, and a note of this provision was inserted in the bonds secured thereby. Some, if not all, the bonds secured by this mortgage were negotiated on behalf of the Carteret company. On January 1st, 1899, the Carteret company…
1Opinion of the Court
Howell, V. C.
The question was raised in limine that the defendant Jones was not in a position to assert any right whatever, for the reason that he could not be subrogated to Condit’s rights.' I think, however, that it is quite clear that Jones by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation is entitled to stand in the shoes of Condit and to assert any claim which Condit might have asserted, and to litigate the same. He was a surety for the vendee, and having paid the vendee’s debt, he is entitled to the place which the vendee had. This is justice, and it is supported by the cases. Meux v. Smith, 11…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Fosdick v. SchallSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Bear Lake & River Water Works & Irrigation Co. v. GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- United States v. New Orleans RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Bayley v. GreenleafSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Pennock v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Richeimer v. FischbeinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1931
- Union Nat. Bank of Bartlesville v. Leidecker Tool/Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Collins v. TweedaleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1935
- Veeder v. Bayshore Development Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928