
    Bank of Montclair, complainant-appellant, v. William Mallas, defendant-respondent.
    [Submitted December 8th, 1936.
    Decided January 27th, 1937.]
    
      Mr. Ghanies L. Hemmersley and Mr. Philip Qoodell, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Joseph Bohrer (Messrs. Leber & Ruback, of counsel), for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We concur in the view expressed in the court below, that the omission of the cestuis que trust from the foreclosure constituted a cloud on the title of the realty contracted to be sold, and that such cloud was not removed by the orphans court proceeding.

The rule that equity will not compel a purchaser to take a doubtful title, laid down in the chancery cases cited in the court below, has also the sanction of this court. Tillotson v. Gesner, 33 N. J. Eq. 313; Van Riper v. Wickersham, 77 N. J. Eq. 232; Doutney v. Lambie, 78 N. J. Eq. 277; Security Bond and Mortgage Co. v. Weiss, 101 N. J. Eq. 307; affirming 100 N. J. Eq. 156; Rosenson v. Bochenek, 102 N. J. Eq. 543.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ciiiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Hei-ier, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Rafeerty, Cole, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.  