Volume 95 — New Jersey Equity Reports

<p>On petition for divorce. On final hearing on master’s report and depositions ex parte.</p>

<p>1. The validity of a marriage is determined by the lene loci contrackts; but it it dissolved or annulled by lea) domicilii.</p> <p>2. A marriage may not be annulled by virtue of the statute of a-foreign state, but only under the statute of this state.</p> <p>3. A threat by a man that if a certain woman did not marry him the next day he would kill her brother, is not, in the circumstances of the case, such duress as entities her to have the marriage annulled for that cause.</p>

<p>On final hearing on petition for divorce.</p>

<p>On bill to redeem. On final hearing.</p>

<p>1. A trustee cannot purchase from himself at his own sale, and his wife is under the same disability unless leave to do so has been previously obtained under an order of court.</p> <p>2. Where property was purchased for the wife of a trustee at the trustee’s sale and afterwards resold by her at a profit, the trustee must account to the heirs for the profit so realized.</p>

<p>1. The right to bury in a cemetery carries with it the light to erect a proper monoment or memorial at the grave. This right is, however, subject to the rules of the cemetery.</p> <p>2. Where a headstone was erected over a grave without the permit required by the rules of the cemetery association, and in violation of the rules and regulations of the cemetery (such rules and regulations appearing to be reasonable and necessary for the proper care and maintenance of the cemetery], the cemetery will be permitted to remove such headstone unless it is placed and set in conformity with such rules and regulations within thirty days from the entry of the decree in this cause.</p>

<p>1. A statute will not be held unconstitutional unless the conflict with the constitution is apparent.</p> <p>2. An amendment to a certificate of incorporation providing for the issuance of additional stock of no par value, designated as “class B common stock,” as distinguished from the stock having a xxar value existing prior to the amendment—Held, not to impair the contract</p> <p>.rights of stockholders in violation of the constitution of the United States.</p> <p>•3. The holder of a single share of stock can bring an action to prevent an attempted ultra vires act of the corporation.</p> <p>1. Under the statutes of New Jersey, which authorize a corporation to increase or decrease its capital stock and to create one or more classes of preferred stock, a corporation cannot, by'amendment of its articles of incorporation, change existing common stock into preferred stock.</p> <p>5. An amendment of the articles of incorporation authorizing an increase of the capital stock by the issuance of new no par value stock, and entitling the common stock formerly issued to a cumulative dividend at a certain per cent, before payment of a dividend on (he new stock at the same per cent., and providing that both issues share equally in additional profits—Held, not to attempt to change existing common stock into preferred stock.</p> <p>6. The right of present stockholders to have the first call upon the new stock cannot be defeated by any corrupt or other plan of the directors.</p> <p>7. A resolution submitting to the stockholders the question whether the board of directors might issue new stock of the character indicated to the holders of the old stock as a stock dividend, or offer to them the right to subscribe for the same, or otherwise dispose of it according to law, does not contemplate a plan whereby the stockholders were to be deprived of their right to purchase their pro rata share of the new stock.</p> <p>S. In a suit of a stockholder to enjoin the issue of new stock, the court will grant an application for a stay of the effect of a dissolution of an order of restraint, pending an appeal to the court of errors and appeals, where the refusal of a stay will result in the destruction of the subject-matter of the litigation, and where the appeal is manifestly taken in good faith, and there is a debatable question.</p> <p>n. Allen v. Francisco Sugar Go., 92 N. J. Eq. J/Sl, distinguished.</p>

<p>1. A party to a suit while necessarily going to, staying at, or returning from a court is equally privileged from the service of a summons or of a capias in a civil action. This rule also applies to the writ of ne exeat.</p> <p>2. Where a defendant tinder bail in a criminal cause, returned to this state from another to stand trial, and, upon the trial being postponed, was arrested under a writ of ne exeat while eating his luncheon at a restaurant across the street from the court house, he should be discharged from custody under that writ.</p>

<p>Where the county clerk of a sister state certified that a notary who took the acknowledgment of a deed covering property in New Jersey was “duly authorized to take the same” this language is substantially that called for by the twenty-third section of our Conveyance act as amended (P. L. 1912 p. 326) and authorize the recording of such deed.</p>

<p>Oil pleadings and proofs.</p>

<p>1. To justify a decree for specific performance of a contract to sell lands the vendor must tender a marketable title.</p> <p>2. Where prior deeds to the land to be conveyed show defective descriptions, and a survey shows a small encroachment, the title to the premises is not marketable, and the agreement to purchase it will not'be specifically enforced.</p>

<p>Under section 58 of the Obancery act (1 Comp. Stut. p. J/SB), the owner of a mortgage not recorded at the time a bill is- filed to foreclose a prior mortgage upon the same premises is barred by the decree in such foreclosure as effectively as if he had been made a party and appeared.</p>

<p>1. Where one erects a 'building by mistake on the lands of another, who knows nothing about it, and, of course, cannot acquiesce, he has •no relief on the ground of mistake only.</p> <p>2. Equity will not grant a man the relief now sought whose condition is attributable solely to his failure to exercise that diligence which may be fully expected from a reasonable person, nor if the negligence was that of the parties’ counsel.</p>

<p>Where a man and his wife were tenants by the entirety to land, and conveyed the lands to one who advanced the husband money, and w'ho afterwards conveyed the lands to the wife, the conveyance on the part of the husband, even if he was or was about to be insolvent, is at most a preference of one of his creditors, and in the absence of fraud participated in by the grantee of the deed, is good.</p>