Case Name: FRED C. EHNES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LOUIS HRONIS AND KATHERINE HRONIS, HIS WIFE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1941-02-07
Citations: 125 N.J.L. 625
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRED C. EHNES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LOUIS HRONIS AND KATHERINE HRONIS, HIS WIFE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
FRED C. EHNES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LOUIS HRONIS AND KATHERINE HRONIS, HIS WIFE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Submitted January 21, 1941
Decided February 7, 1941.
Before Justices Bodtne and Pokteh.
For the plaintiff-appellant, Jacob J. Greenman and Jacob T. Shoenholz.
For the defendants-respondents, Saros & Saros (Nicholas Saros).

Opinion:
Bodine, J.
The appeal is from a judgment of no cause of action. The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note and upon the condition contained in a chattel mortgage securing the same. The note was admittedly barred by the statute of limitations.
Had there been a covenant in the mortgage to pay the note, the circumstance that the suit on the note was barred by the statute of limitations would be no defense to an action on the covenant. Lembech & Betz Eagle Brewing Co. v. Krause, 94 N. J. L. 219. But there was no covenant in the chattel mortgage in suit. There was but a condition avoiding the conveyance upon the payment of the debt. This is not a covenant under seal to pay the debt. Hence, there could have been no other ruling than that of the learned trial judge. Gottfried Krueger Brewing Co. v. Remek, 110 Id. 489.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.