Case ID: nj-eq_34/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beasley, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Agnes M. Miller et al., appellants, v. John M. Ferdon, respondent.
    On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in Ferdon v. Miller, 7 Stew. Fq. 10.
    
    
      Messrs. Linn & Babbitt, for appellants.
    
      Mr. C. li. Voorhis, for respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, C. J.

I agree with the views as to the merits of this case expressed in the opinion of the chancellor, and think that the decree, to that extent, should be affirmed, and the mortgage in question should be held valid.

But the decree, as it would seem, from inadvertence, goes beyond the relief indicated in the opinion, in the respect of imposing on Mrs. Miller and her general estate the deficiency that may arise on the sale of the mortgaged premises. Mrs. Miller was the surety of her husband in that transaction, and she could not, therefore, assume any personal obligation. The decree in that particular must be set aside and modified. As the appellants, if they had called the attention of the chancellor to this excess in this decree, could have had it properly restricted, and as they omitted to do so, they are not entitled to costs in that court.