Gray v. Hattersley
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Heard on bill, answer, cross-bill and replication. This is a bill to foreclose. No question arises upon the mortgage. That is admitted by all the defendants. The contest is between the defendants Thomas S. Hattersley and his sister Mrs. Jane Alice Bissett.
Read the full summary
Heard on bill, answer, cross-bill and replication. This is a bill to foreclose. No question arises upon the mortgage. That is admitted by all the defendants. The contest is between the defendants Thomas S. Hattersley and his sister Mrs. Jane Alice Bissett. The mortgage was executed by Charles Hattersley, the father of the defendants, in the year 1872, and covers two parcels of land, one a house and lot situate in the city of Trenton and the other a tract of land situate in Middlesex county. After the execution of this mortgage, and on the 16th day of April, 1884, Charles Hattersley made a…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
The defendant Mrs. Bissett contends that the Trenton house and lot devised to her brother, the defendant Thomas -S. Hattersley, should be first sold to pay the amount due on complainant’s mortgage, and the Middlesex county property conveyed to her by her father, the mortgagor, should be held liable for no more than the deficiency arising after such sale.
The defendant Thomas, on the other hand, contends that the two several parcels should bear the burden of the mortgage ratably, in proportion to their respective values to be determined by their sale under execution.
Mrs. Bissett…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cooper v. BiglyMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gillespie v. GillespieNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
- Stuyvesant Security Co. v. DreyerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- In Re WickNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1936
- President of the Manhattan Co. v. ArmourSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1953