Case ID: nj-eq_2/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen Vreeland v. Joseph Loubat and Francis Cottenett.
    Yhe mortgagor having disposed of the equity of redemption, and having, mo interest in the mortgaged premises; is not a necessary party to a bill for foreclosure.
    The bill in this- cause was filed for foreclosure of the equity of redemption, and, sale of the mortgaged premises. The defendants were the purchasers of the equity of redemption,- the mortgagor having disposed of his interest in the premises to them.The mortgagor was not a party. The dejfendants demurred for want of parties. The cause came on for hearing upon the demurrer.
    
      I H. Williamson, foi complainant.
    
      J. D. Miller, for the defendants.
    For the complainant' it was contended, that the mortgagor,having parted with his interest in the premises, was not a necessary or proper party to the bill. The proceeding is in rem. He cannot with safety be made a party. If it appear upon the face of the bill that the mortgagor has no interest, he may demur; if otherwise, he may answer, showing that he has no interest, and subject.the complainant to costs.
   The Chancellor.

It has been usual to make the mortgagor, who has parted with the equity of redemption, a defendant to a hill for foreclosure, but he is not a necessary party. The proceeding is in rem. An account may be taken without him. There is no reason why he should be made a patty-

The demurrer must be overruled, with costs.