Perth Amboy evening news., 1911-04-07
TITLE To LAND
AT KEANSBURC
Decision of Vice Chancellor
for Chas. Carr.
oscial TO the ByENING NEWS.

Special to the EVENING NEWS.
keansburg, April IA case OF
considerable interest involving the
title to lands at Keansburg was de-
cided by Vice Chancellor Howell IN
Newark on Friday last, by which
Charles Carr's title to lands owned
by him at Keansburg was settled
and established by the decision OF
the Court of Chancery.
The case grew out of a contract
made by Charles Carr, the owner OF
the property, to sell to Christian l..
Olsen, a builder and contractor at
K~eansburg, twelve lots on Cars
tract. After the contract was made
Mr.. Olsen learned that John Shafer,
of Hackensack, claimed to part
of these lots under two quit claim
deeds, which he obtained from Ru-
uf Ludlow and william Matthews,
Sr., and because of this claim Mr..
Olsen refused to take the deed which
Mr.. Carr rendered him and brought
suit in Chancery to compel Mr.. Carr
TO give him a good title to the prop
erty.
The case was heard by Vice Chan
eellor Howell. and Mr.. Ludlow, Mfr.
Matthews, MIR. Shafer and others,
were heard as witnesses, and the
deeds under which Shafer claimed
title were also put in evidence.
II appears that Mr.. Carr bought
the property from Gustave Maurer,
OF Keyport, IN 1908; that Maurer
had purchased the property r short
time before that from Herbert De-
Mise Lloyd, who had inherited the
property from his father, Mr.. Lloyd,
Sr. having bought the property in
question from Alfred Walling as ad-
ministrator of Joseph Matthews, de
ceased, about 1855, and it also ap-
pears from the testimony that both
William Matthews and Ruff Lud-
low were the tenants of Mr.. Lloyd,
and that Mr.. Lloyd had paid the
taxes on the property, kept the same
insured and was the only person who
had a proper paper title to the prop
erty. Mr.. Ruff Ludlow claimed
that some years ago in walking
about the premises Mr.. Lloyd told
him he would give the property to
him. Mr.. Lloyd denied this and said
that such an idea had never entered
his head.
Mr.. Shafer admitted that he had
paid Ludlow 5000 for his possession
of the property, which was what he
considered he bought from Ludlow,
and that he had paid Matthews
$1.00 for whatever claim he might
have on the property.
Mckay & Mckay, of Hackensack,
represented Mr.. Shafer, E. H. Cook
represented Mr.. Olsen, and Judge
Foster represented Mr.. Carr.
The Vice Chancellor on the con-
cIusion of the case, decided the mat
ter, after which Mr.. Olsen expressed
himself as satisfied to accept title
from Mr.. Carr. The probabilities
are hal a suit in ejectment will now
be brought by Carr against Shafer
and Ludlow.
The following is a copy Of the
Vice Chancellor's opinion:
(Orally.) The rules relating to
the enforcement of contracts spe-
as aSa md aysscf4a ri az r f99pdfaaRelse
i'll eve be decreed where the title
is unmarketable. or where the title
is in doubt and has not been settled
In a common law action, as
sci know very well from the case of
Slockbower VS.. Kanouse. and a long
line OF cases IN our state on the sub
ject. or course that means that
there shall be not a mere pretence
OF title but that there shall be
enough In the case to make an ac-
tual dispute; not a mere frivolous
claim but an actual bona fde claim.
Whatever / say now is not binding
upon Mr.. Shafer, because he is not
a party to the suit, but from the evil
dence that has been adduced In this
case ] would say that there Is no
shadow of a title in him and that
the assertion Of title which he makes
is frivolous and Of no Importance,
not TO be considered.
1t appears first that Mr.. Ruff
Ludlow was in possession of the
dwelling house on this property for
a number OF years; that he was there
as the tenant of the owner, and thai
he paid rent; and it appears also
that the other man who signed the
deed, Matthews, was also a tenant
Of the premises and actually paid
rent. Now you know il is a very