Opinion
06-15-1889
SEA GROVE BLDG. ASS'N v. PARSONS et al. SAME v. HAAS.
E. B. Leaming, for complainant. W. D. Holt, for defendant Parsons.
On bills to foreclose and reform mortgages, by the Sea Grove Building Association against Elwood Parsons and others, and against Levi Haas.
E. B. Leaming, for complainant. W. D. Holt, for defendant Parsons.
BIRD, V. C. The association owned a large tract of land, which they desired to improve by laying it out in streets and lots for building purposes. They made a map of it, and had it filed as their record, in the clerk's office. The map represented one block as block "E," the north-west corner of which was at a point in the junction of Lake, Harvard, and Ocean avenues. On this map lot No. 16 was and is represented as having a front of 50 feet on Harvard avenue, and 100 on Lake avenue. Lot No. 17, adjoining 16, is of the same dimensions, also fronting on Harvard avenue. It will be perceived that the two lots form a tract 100 feet square. Stockton, wanting to buy a parcel of this hundred feet, prevailed upon the company to alter the line between the two lots so that the 50 feet front would be on Lake avenue, and they called the lot extending along Harvard avenue lot "No. 16," and the other "No. 17." The association made a map of the whole premises in conformity with this change, and kept it posted in its office, but it made no change of the map in the county clerk's office. While Stockton was the owner, he built an hotel, fronting on Lake avenue, and extending back, along Harvard avenue, 50 feet, so that the whole width of lot 16, as originally plotted, was covered by his hotel. Afterwards he extended his hotel along Harvard avenue 30 feet, all of which extension was on lot 17 as originally plotted. Stockton afterwards purchased lot No. 17. Stockton gave several mortgages to the complainant, but only on lot No. 16, three of which are still unsatisfied, and are sought to be foreclosed, and also to be reformed, so as to more clearly identify the property which the one intended to convey and the other to purchase. It will be seen by what follows that while the parties to the deed, being possessed of the knowledge above mentioned, would understand the extent of No. 16, others, strangers to what had transpired between the original parties, but having knowledge of the map filed in the clerk's office, would not be supposed to know. The benefit of this suggestion is claimed by Parsons, who took a mortgage to secure a loan of $1,200, subject to the three of the complainant. The first mortgage given to the complainant for $3,000 describes the lot as 16, on a map of lots recorded in the clerk's office, referring to it. The second and third mortgages, for $600, describes the premises in the same manner. Itis agreed by the parties, in the statement of facts submitted, that the association intended to convey to Stockton by deed, and that Stockton intended to convey to the association by mortgage, lot No. 16, as delineated on the changed or altered map exhibited in the office of the company. After these mortgages were executed and recorded, Stockton conveyed to the defendant Parsons lot No. 16, by the following description: "All that certain land, with the improvement thereon, erected, situate, and lying and being in the borough of Cape May Point, in the county of Cape May, and state of New Jersey; being lot No. 16, in block E, as laid down on a certain map of lots and streets, and duly recorded in the clerk's office of Cape May as by reference thereto will more fully appear, and bounded and described as follows: to-wit, beginning at the corner of Lake, Harvard, and Ocean avenues, having a front of fifty feet on Lake avenue, and having a depth of one hundred feet on Harvard avenue." By deed of the same date Stockton conveyed a lot to said Parsons by the following description: "All that certain lot of land and premises hereinafter particularly described, situate, lying, and being in the borough of Cape May Point and state of New Jersey, being lot 17 in block E, as laid down on a certain map of lots and streets, and duly recorded in the clerk's office of Cape May county, as by reference thereto will more fully and at large appear; commencing at a point on the easterly side of Lake avenue or drive, fifty feet northward from the north-east corner of said Lake avenue and Harvard avenue; thence extending northward, along the said Lake avenue, fifty feet, to a point; thence eastward, and parallel with the said Harvard avenue, one hundred feet; thence southward, on a line parallel with the said Lake avenue, fifty feet, to a point; thence eastward, on a line parallel with said Harvard avenue, one hundred feet, to the place of beginning."
After these two conveyances to Parsons he conveyed both of the said lots to Martha MacIlvaine, "being lots Nos. 16 and 17, in block E, as laid down on a certain map of lots and streets, and duly recorded in the clerk's office of Cape May court-house, as by reference thereto will more fully appear;" further describing them as being one hundred feet in front on Lake avenue, and one hundred feet in depth on Harvard avenue, and as "being the same premises which William R. Stockton and wife, by their two deeds, each dated the 9th day of February, A. D. 1884, and recorded in the clerk's office of Cape May county, at Cape May courthouse, New Jersey, in Deed-Book number 62, pages 351, 352, 353, 354," etc., "for a consideration therein mentioned, granted and conveyed to the said Elwood Parsons in fee." On the same 20th day of October, 1885, the said Martha MacIlvaine executed a mortgage on the same premises to secure to Parsons the payment of the sum of $1,200, describing it therein as the same premises which Parsons had conveyed to the said MacIlvaine. In April, 1886, MacIlvaine conveyed the fee to Levi Haas, one of the defendants. Parsons claims priority over the three mortgages given to the association, not only on lot 17, which his mortgage covers exclusively, but also on that half of the lot No. 16 which was and is half of No. 17, as described in the plan of lots filed in the clerk's office. It will be seen that if this is the legal effect of the transaction, and Parsons can stand upon it, as an innocent purchaser, the association, instead of having the first lien on a lot 50 by 100 feet, and all the buildings thereon, have such lien only on a lot 50 feet square, and not more than two-thirds of the improvements by way of buildings, intended to be conveyed.
I think the claim of Parsons to priority must give way to the plain equity of the case; nor do I think that he stands in the position of an innocent purchaser: (1) It does not appear that he ever saw the map which was filed in the clerk's office giving the original location of lots 16 and 17, or that he placed any reliance on it whatsoever as an evidence of title, or of the true location of the lot, or of the real manner in which the lot 100 feet was divided. (2) When he purchased lot 16, the improvements, such as the hotel and the like, were upon it, 20 by 30 feet of which extended over and was upon the portion of the premises in dispute. The law holds that he purchased with reference to such condition, and charges him with knowledge. It cannot be for a moment considered that he supposed or could possibly have been induced to believe, from anything appearing in the case, that lot 16 extended 100 feet on Lake avenue, thus dividing the hotel, rather than 100 feet on Harvard avenue, preserving the hotel intact. In view of the fact that he purchased the lots separately, taking a conveyance for each one, makes the foregoing observation significant. (3) Then it will be seen, by references to the description in the deeds made to him, that the lots are particularly described as the complainant claims they were really intended to be located, each one fronting 50 feet on Lake avenue, and extending back 100 feet, No. 16 on the line of Harvard avenue, and number 17 parallel with such line. It seems to me this language is unequivocal, and makes the notice to Parsons complete. (4) In his deed to MacIlvaine he refers to the two deeds under which he took title. So that it cannot be claimed that MacIlvaine was without knowledge, for she is chargeable with notice of the contents of all instruments referred to in those under which she directly claims.
Counsel for Parsons relies on the fact that there was a map of the premises on file at the time Parsons took the title, showing that the two lots were separated by a line running from Harvard avenue parallel with Lake avenue, and not from Lake parallel with Harvard, and thinks that this fact must control every other consideration, and refers to thefollowing cases in support of his views: Thomas v. Patten, 13 Me. 329; Proprietors v. Tiff any, 1 Greenl. 219; Lincoln v. Wilder, 29 Me. 169; Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 211; Jackson v. Perrine, 35 N. J. Law, 137; Morgan v. Moore, 3 Gray, 319; Birmingham v. Anderson, 48 Pa. St. 253; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black. 499; Glover v. Shields, 32 Barb. 379. The law as thus laid down is not disputed, and would control in this case, were there no other equally or more important facts to be considered, such as that Parsons accepted a deed for each lot in which it is described as fronting 50 feet on Lake avenue, and extending 100 feet in the one case along Harvard avenue, and in the other parallel to Harvard avenue; showing that he actually contracted for and accepted title to the lots as they were actually laid or surveyed by the company and by Stockton. The case of Anglesea v. Colgan, 44 N. J. Eq. 203, 14 Atl. Rep. 627, may be studied with profit on this head. Nor is this view of the case any infringement of the rule that forbids the introduction of parol testimony to contradict the written agreements of parties. Parol evidence was only considered so far as necessary to identify these lots, and their exact location with reference to both maps, and to show the improvements thereon, and not in the least to vary the plain expressions in the deed. It seems to me that the language of the deed to Parsons is so plain as to conclusively bind him to follow, rather than to lead, in this question of priority.
I will advise that the mortgages held by the complainant be so reformed as to express the intention of the parties thereto in harmony with the foregoing views, and that a reference be made to ascertain the amount due, and that the complainant have a decree for the sale of the mortgaged premises.