Case Name: James S. Barrow, appellant. v. Daniel Van Winkle, respondent
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1882-11
Citations: 36 N.J. Eq. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: James S. Barrow, appellant. v. Daniel Van Winkle, respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
James S. Barrow, appellant. v. Daniel Van Winkle, respondent.
On appeal from a deeree advised by Vice-Chancellor Dodd, who rendered the following opinion :
In the foreclosure suit of Van Winkle v. JBlakiston et al., I think there should be a decree that the mortgage of the defendant, Barrow, is a subsequent lien to the mortgages of the complainant. My conclusion is that the Barrow mortgage was taken with actual notice of those previously executed to the complainant.
Mr. Chas. H. Voorhis, for appellant.
Messrs. Ackerson & Van Valen, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons given in the foregoing opinion.