
    Docket 124/467
    Vineland National Bank and Trust Company, a corporation of the United States, complainant, v. Annie Rothman and Bessie Stavitsky, defendants.
    [Decided January 7th, 1941.]
    
      Mr. Edwin F. Miller (Mr. Herbert G. Bartlett, of counsel), for the complainant.
    
      Mr. Joseph B. Moss (Mr. IV. Louis Bossle, of counsel), for the defendants.
   Sooy, V. C.

Complainant is about to enter a decree declaring a certain mortgage to have been executed by defendant Rothman to her daughter in fraud of complainant and substituting the lien thereof to complainant’s judgment obtained by it against Mrs. Rothman in the law courts. The form of the decree is assented to as being in conformity with the court’s conclusions.

Counsel for the defendants object to a request for counsel fees to be taxed in favor of the complainant. The theory of defendants’ opposition is that included in complainants judgment a 10% collection fee has been added in conformity with the terms of the note upon which the judgment was. based, and that the note contract for fees comprehended compensation to complainant’s solicitors for all services rendered in an attempt to make collection, both in the law and Chancery Courts.

I find nothing to sustain such a reasoning. Certainly the parties to thé note did not contemplate that the defendants would fraudulently attempt to put the assets of Mrs. Roth-man beyond the reach of the ordinary process of the law courts and thus require the institution of an independent suit in this court to set aside the attempted transfer in order that collection might be made in the law courts through execution and levy.

A fee of $200 will be included in the decree.  