Case Name: William H. Burnett, appellant, v. Caroline Vredenburgh, respondent
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1881-06
Citations: 34 N.J. Eq. 252
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Burnett, appellant, v. Caroline Vredenburgh, respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 252–255

Head Matter:
William H. Burnett, appellant, v. Caroline Vredenburgh, respondent.
On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, whose opinion is published in Vredenburgh v. Burnett, J¡. Stew. Eq. 229.
The question involved in this case is the priority of mortgages. One is held by the respondent and one by appellant. Both claim priority. Both mortgages were made by W. S. Leonard and wife to A. G. Plume and Mary J. Lockwood. Both are •dated April 1st, 1871. Both cover the same premises. Both are stated on their face to have been given for purchase-money. The respondent’s mortgage is for the sum of $4,000; was acknowledged May 20th, 1871 ; was recorded May 23d, 1871; was assigned to Eliza Rooney May 22d, 1871. In the assignment, Plume guarantees the payment of the mortgage debt. July 12th, 1877, Mrs. Rooney assigned the mortgage to the complainant. The mortgage held by the appellant was acknowledged May 20th, 1871; was recorded May 22d, 1871, at half-past nine a. M. The history of these two mortgages, and the transaction out of which they arose, is this:
In the fall of 1870, Leonard, the mortgagor, agreed to purchase a lot of Plume and Lockwood, on Third avenue, in Newark, on which they were to erect for him a dwelling house. The lot was twenty-five by one hundred and fifty feet. He was to pay them a certain amount in cash, and give back a mortgage as for the purchase-money, for $4,000. In February, 1871, he agreed to purchase an additional lot adjoining for $1,500, giving a mortgage for the purchase-money to cover both lots. He paid the purchase-money to be paid in cash. When the deed was made from Plume and Lockwood to Leonard, it conveyed the two lots by one description. Two mortgages, with bonds accompanying, were sent by Plume to Leonard to be executed. Leonard says he executed them, supposing and believing that they had been drawn according to his agreement with Mr. Plume. In fact, both mortgages covered the entire premises. Plume says that at the date of the assignment to Mrs. Rooney, he stated to her agent, Mr. Wilkinson, that the $4,000 mortgage was first in priority. Mr. Burnett states that Mr. Plume assured him at the date of the assignment to him of the $1,500 mortgage, that it was a first lien on the lot last sold to Leonard, and second on the lot first sold, and that he had been so assured before he took it, by Mr. Leonard,, the mortgagor. He further states that he purchased the mortgage for its full value in good faith, supposing and believing that it was a first lien on the second lot, and that he had no intimation or knowledge to the contrary, or that it was claimed to the contrary, until about the time of the commencement of this-suit.
Mr. Joseph Coult, for appellant, cited—
Shannon v. Marselis, Sax. 413; Cornish v. Bryan, 2 Stock. 146, 154; Westervelt v. Scott, 3 Stock. 80, 83; Danbury v. Robinson, 1 McCart. 213, 218; Conover v. Van Mater, 3 C. E. Gr. 481; Kamena v. Huelbig, 8 C. E. Gr. 78; Atwater v. Underhill, 8 C. E. Gr. 600, 606; Drake v. Bray, MS. 1821; Redfearn v. Terrier, 1 Dow 50; Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 441; 1 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 399, note 3.
Mr. Aram G. Sayre, for respondent, cited—
Gausen v. Tomlinson, 8 C. E. Gr. 406; Holmes v. Stout, 2 Stock. 426; Tatem v. Green, 6 C. E. Gr. 364; Hoy v. Bramhall, 4 C. E. Gr. 572; Nichols v. Peak, 1 Beas. 69.

Opinion:
No written opinion was delivered on behalf of the majority of the court.