Case Name: Wilhelmina T. Gibbs, complainant-respondent, v. Reuben Gibbs et al., defendants-appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-11-19
Citations: 95 N.J. Eq. 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wilhelmina T. Gibbs, complainant-respondent, v. Reuben Gibbs et al., defendants-appellants.
Judges: For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Trenci-iard, Parker, Kaliscti, Black, Katzenbaoh, White, Heppeniieimer, Ackerson, Yan Buskirk—10.
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
Wilhelmina T. Gibbs, complainant-respondent, v. Reuben Gibbs et al., defendants-appellants.
[Submitted July 9th, 1923.
Decided November 19th, 1923.]
On appeal from the court of chancery; decree for complainant advised by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan, reported in 92 N. J. Eq. 542.
Mr. Barry Cooper, for the appellants.
Mr. Ellis L. Pierson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This was a bill to reform a purchase-money mortgage made out in the name of complainant and Peuben Gibbs, her husband, as mortgagees, and which the husband later undertook to assign to the defendant Warren Gibbs. The vice-chancellor advised a decree of reformation so that the mortgage and the bond secured thereby should read to the complainant. Wilhelmina, alone, and held on the évidence that defendant Warren Gibbs was not a bona fide purchaser for value. The reasons for his decision are stated in an oral deliverance of some length which need not be reproduced in full. We concur in his finding that inasmuch as the title to the property described in the mortgage had stood before conveyance to the mortgagors in complainant, Wilhelmina, alone, even if her husband had paid for it and put the title in her name, this imported a settlement on her, and that the husband had failed to show a different intent by any evidence satisfying the rule of burden of proof in such cases. McGee v. McGee, 81 N. J. Eq. 190; Hood v. Hood, 83 N. J. Eq. 695, 698. We concur also in the finding that the insertion of the husband's name as co-mortgagee in the mortgage and bond was, as to the mortgagors and the wife, a mistake, growing out of the requirement by vendees' attorney that the husband join in the contract of sale, and the oversight of the scrivener that drew the papers, and either a mistake or fraud on the part of the husband. The finding that Warren had no rights as a bona fide purchaser was also fully sustained by the evidence.
The decree will be affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Trenci-iard, Parker, Kaliscti, Black, Katzenbaoh, White, Heppeniieimer, Ackerson, Yan Buskirk—10.
For reversal—None.