Case law

Orient Insurance v. Rudolph

69 N.J. Eq. 570 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 19, 1905

federal provisions apply only to final decrees, and that this order is not such decree, but as the order is the final decree or judgment in the supplementary .proceedings, and vesta title to the debtor’s property, it is clearly … The New York cases referred to as giving a different effect to the order appointing a receiver related tq receiverships of a different character, and do not qualify the effect of Wright v. Nostrand.

Fidler v. Higgins

21 N.J. Eq. 138 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1870

The canons of male preference and primogeniture, which also qualified this rule, have been expressly repealed. … Bray , as to ascent, applied to this case, would clearly leave the common law rule to govern it.

Hartwell v. Camman

10 N.J. Eq. 128 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1854

The estate was clearly one of fee simple in the mines. The condition neither lessened, enlarged, or qualified that estate. … The analysis only establishes the fact, that this is not a metalliferous ore.

Demarest v. Vandenberg

39 N.J. Eq. 130 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1884

If it appears, he will be qualified to testify. If it does not .appear otherwise, he may show it, if he can. As to the status of a next friend, generally, see Balt. & Ohio R. R. Coi v. … The rule clearly extends to cases where the witness is incompetent to testify at all. It in terms empowers the. examiner to decide upon all objections to evidence.

Mullany v. Mullany

3 N.J. Eq. 16 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 15, 1837

He says, “The devisor seems to have had two intentions, which are inconsistent > one was to give an estate in fee to the feme covert, the other to qualify it in such manner as that her husband should have no power over it … This case establishes the principle that the intention of a testator cannot prevail against the rules of law. And five years after, lord chancellor Cowper, in Harvey v. Harvey, 1 P.

Fisher v. Skillman's Executors

18 N.J. Eq. 229 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1867

The words in their natural meaning clearly would in all such cases, give an equal share to each of the children or heirs of the person so designated. … Thus the doctrine is established by a series of well considered cases, both in England and this country, that a devise or bequest like that under consideration, unless qualified by other parts of the will, gives the property

Bentley v. Long Dock Co.

14 N.J. Eq. 480 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1862

If the truth of the objection be established, the report as of course would be set aside. … not willing to rest, either upon the report of the master, the decision of this court, or even upon their own judgments, upon the evidence in the cause, but selected a commission, as more worthy of confidence or better qualified

Tyndale v. McLaughlin

84 N.J. Eq. 652 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 10, 1915

The executor named in the will did not qualify. The will was first proved in the county of New York, and was later admitted to probate in this state by the surrogate of Essex county. … But, the cross-bills remedy any defect in jurisdiction, for the facts they set up, and the relief they pray, are clearly cognizable in equity. Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. (6th Am. ed.) 1553; Story Eq.

Naughton v. Elliott

68 N.J. Eq. 259 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 30, 1905

Its effect as establishing a mistake on defendant’s part, or complainant’s knowledge of it, will be considered hereafter. … The lease did not refer to defendant’s deed, either for fixing the beginning corner or anjr other purpose, and this deed, therefore, cannot, as against complainant, be referred to for the purpose of adding to or qualifying

Todd v. Meding

56 N.J. Eq. 83 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 27, 1897

The qualifying rule that such an assignment cannot be enforced by action at law without the acceptance or assent of the debtor does not vary the result. … Now it was clearly the duty of the receiver in this case to scrutinize each one of these claims submitted to him, and to ascertain their validity and freedom from suspicion, and to ascertain to whom they were severally payable

Atlantic Trust Co. v. Consolidated Electric Storage Co.

49 N.J. Eq. 402 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1892

that, both according to the plain letter of the statute and the uniform construction it *406 has received, the power of the court in such cases depends exclusively on the fact of insolvency, and that until that fact is clearly-established … But until insolvency is proved, no foundation is laid for the exercise of discretion, and in any case *408 where the proofs fail to establish that fact, clearly and satisfactorily, the court must decline to act for want of

New York & New Jersey Lubricant Co. v. Young

77 N.J. Eq. 321 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 8, 1910

This statement would have, perhaps, to be qualified by what Lord Westbury said in the case above cited: “I cannot receive it as a rule that a plaintiff is not answerable for a falsehood because it may be so gross or palpable … Are they any the less material misrepresentations on that account, or do they indicate any the less clearly the purpose of adopting the label? It would seem plain, therefore, that complainant should be denied relief.

In Re North Jersey Title Insurance Co.

120 N.J. Eq. 148 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 15, 1936

Rep at p. 504 ): "The tenure by a trustee of his office clearly shows he has no property right therein. … We have no disposition to qualify what was there said.

Falk v. Janes

49 N.J. Eq. 484 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1892

Sire with the body of the assignment relied on, clearly shows that both papers were ’written by the same hand. … Ho testimony was given before me to establish this contention but, after the death of Mr.

Fisler v. Porch

10 N.J. Eq. 243 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1854

He is bound to establish the fact by proof. In Thomson v. … But the fact that he did this is, standing by itself, as consistent with the fact of a qualified, as of an absolute assignment.

Creech v. McVaugh

140 N.J. Eq. 272 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 18, 1947

January 18th, 1943, his brother, William Creech, was appointed administrator in his place and, having qualified, took over possession of the decedent's real estate and began to collect the rents. … Rep. 519 , pointed out that in construing a will and a codicil, "`* * * it is an established rule not to disturb the dispositions of the will further than *Page 277 is absolutely necessary for the purpose of giving effect

West v. Walker

3 N.J. Eq. 279 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 15, 1835

If the complainant will proceed'at law, and clearly establish his right, and the defendant shall persist in repeated acts of trespass, equity may then interpose to quiet possession and to prevent a multiplicity of suits. … Printing and Dying establishment v. Fitch, 1 Paige, 99 .

See v. Heppenheimer

69 N.J. Eq. 36 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 3, 1905

think, admitting the directors to have been competent under our statute to act as such in making the contract with Stein, yet, under all the circumstances, the fact that they had not paid one cent for their stock; that the qualifying … But if this remedy were granted the result, as clearly shown in complainant's argument, would be substantially the same.

Bottomley v. Bottomley

134 N.J. Eq. 279 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 7, 1944

They duly qualified and took over the administration of his estate. … The question presented is simply this: Will the court execute the clear intent of the testator not fully or clearly expressed in a will, or will it by a strict technical adherence to the form of words and their literal meaning

King v. Klemp

26 N.J. Misc. 140 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 22, 1947

Defendant says (1) that her decree was an absolute divorce on the date of rendition, that the marital relation was destroyed thereby, that the seemingly qualifying language of the decree was simply a limitation on, or prohibition … yet valid if celebrated elsewhere according to the law of the place even if the parties are citizená and residents of this commonwealth and have gone abroad for the purpose of evading our laws, unless the legislature has clearly