Case ID: nj-eq_41/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Chancellor, appellant, v. William C. Traphagen et al., respondents.
    A bond and mortgage were given in 1881, and the premises were conveyed in 1884 to the respondent, who assumed the payment of the mortgage thereon. —Held, that he cannot, since the act of 1880 (P. L. of 1880 p. 225), be held personally liable for any deficiency arising on the sale of the premises under the foreclosure of the mortgage.
    On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Bird, who filed the following conclusions :
    The statute (P. L. of 1880 p. %5S), as interpreted by Vice-Chancellor Dodd, in Allen v. Allen, 7 Stew. Eq. 493, seems to dispose of this question in favor of the petitioner. I came to this conclusion by force of that opinion, by a careful and able judge, independently of any proof, of which none has been offered, excepting only the petition with the usual verification; and this, it would appear, cannot be regarded as sufficient proof upon which to found an order or decree. Dinsmore v. Wescott, 10 C. E. Gr. 302, and Carpenter v. Muchmore, 2 McCart. 123. And this is in accordance with the constant practice in the court, so far as I have observed or had experience.
    
      Mr. S. M. Diekinson and Mr. Gilbert Collins, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Q. H. Voorhis, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

This decree unanimously affirmed, for the reasons given by the vice-chancellor.