Case law

Smith v. Eastwood Wire Manufacturing Co.

58 N.J. Eq. 331 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 8, 1899

Emery, V. C. … Meredith v. Zinc and Iron Co., 10 Dick. Ch.Rep. 211, 218 (Vice-Chancellor Pitney, 1897); affirmed on appeal for reasons stated, 11 Dick. Ch. Rep. 454. And in Pronik v. Spirits Distillery Co., 42 Atl.

Manhattan Life Insurance v. Paulison

28 N.J. Eq. 304 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1877

Gordon v. Torrey, 2 McCart. 112. According to the statement of the case, there was, in the case under consideration, no interruption of the building except such as was rendered necessary by the season of the year. … It was to be built entirely of cut brown stone, and the work was suspended only during the building of the walls, and then only in the season of the year in which, on account of the weather and the consequent liability to

Dubois v. Van Valen

61 N.J. Eq. 331 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 20, 1901

It was so held iñ a somewhat similar case, in Brown v. Hammond, Johns. (Eng.) Ch. 210, and in Eaton v. Hewitt, 2 Drewry & S. 184; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 1120; and by Sir George Jessel, master of the rolls, in Underhill v. … Div. 494 (1876); also in Bates v. Webb, 8 Mass. 458 , and Ferson v. Dodge, 23 Pick. 287 . The case is in marked contrast with Wooster v. Cooper, 8 Dick. Ch. Rep. 682, and Benz v. Fabian, 9 Dick. Ch. Rep. 615.

Schmoele v. Atlantic City Railroad Co.

108 N.J. Eq. 353 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 28, 1931

Rep. 557 ; Schaper v. Cleveland and Erie Railway Co., 265 Pa. 109 ; Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 89 N.J. Law 57 ; affirmed, 90 N.J. … Edison Storage Battery Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 93 N.J. Law 301 ; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. United Lead Co., 102 N.J. Law 545 (at p. 549 ); Bayonne v. Passaic Consolidated Water Co., 98 N.J.

Cameron v. Crowley

72 N.J. Eq. 681 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 4, 1907

Lippincolt v. Ridgway, 10 N. J. Eq. (2 Stock.) 164 (Chancellor Williamson, 1854); Wright v. Wright, 41 N. J. Eq. (14 Stew.) 382 (Chancellor Runyon, 1886); Inglis v. McCook, 68 N. J. … Brown, 4 Call 477 (Va., 1803); Hill v. Jones, 65 Ala. 214 (1880); Maitland v. Baldwin, 70 Hun 267 ; 24 N. Y. Supp. 29 (N. Y., 1893); Boyle’s Estate, 5 W. N. C. 363 (Penna., 1878).

Cain v. Belden

93 N.J. Eq. 576 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 25, 1922

Wilkinson v. Sherman, 45 N. J. Eq. 413. … Hopper v. Demarest, 21 N. J. Law 525; Wilkinson v. Sherman, supra. Cantine v. Brown, 46 N. J. Law 599, cited by the defendant as supporting his contention, was a suit for damages for breach of covenant to purchase land.

Miller v. Marshall

115 N.J. Eq. 445 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 9, 1934

Filley v. Van Dyke, 75 N.J. Eq. 571 . The complainant's status as a creditor of the estate must be regarded as established by the judgment in the supreme court. The judgment is conclusive until reversed. Handwerk v. … Githens v. Atlantic Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 94 N.J. Eq. 455 .

Rosenberg v. Silverman

93 N.J. Eq. 54 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 1, 1921

The doctrine of Keator v. Brown, 57 N. J. Eq. 600, cited by the complainant, is inapplicable. The amended bill will be dismissed.

Kinnear v. Ballagh

109 N.J. Eq. 27 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Sep 25, 1931

The principle involved is that laid down by the court of errors and appeals in Dunn v. Ryan, 82 N.J. Eq. 356 . … Smith v. Smith, 54 N.J. Eq. 1 . From the transactions which took place following the death of James H. Ballagh it would seem that the persons interested had grave doubts as to the validity of the devise.

Vanneman v. Swedesboro Loan & Building Ass'n

42 N.J. Eq. 263 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1886

Nuckolls, 37 Ala. 662 ; but see Savage v. Dowd, 54 Miss. 728 ; or if the bill was authoritatively signed by counsel, Brown v. Jewett, 120 Mass. 215 ; see Dennie v. Williams, 135 Mass. 28 ; Dowyelot v. … (La.) 545; Brown v. Feeter, 7 Wend. 301 ; Carr v. Emory College, 32 Ga. 557 ; Smith v. Harrell, 16 La. Ann. 190 ; Isaac v. Clarke, 2 Gill 1 . — Rep. Was the conduct of the parties fraudulent?

Moglia v. Moglia

73 N.J. Eq. 445 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 13, 1907

But a provision inserted in the deed, or other instrument, declaring that the husband and wife hold as joint tenants and not by entirety —Joos v. Fey, 129 N. Y. 17 (1891); Miner v. Brown, 133 N. … Warrington v. Warrington, 6 Jur. 872 (Vice-Chancellor Wigram, 1842).

Slegel v. Slegel

135 N.J. Eq. 5 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 20, 1944

and , and vice versa , in order to maintain the express general intent of the testator, is founded on judicial decisions that run back for more than two hundred years, as this court formerly observed, in the case of Den v. … Brown v. Mugway, 15 N.J. Law 330 . In my judgment the testatrix intended by the clause in question that Mrs.

Koch v. Gorruflo

77 N.J. Eq. 172 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 18, 1910

A restriction of this character will prohibit a school (Johnstone v. Hall (1856), 2 K. & J. 414) : or a charitable institution (German v. Chapman, 7 C. B. 271); or a boarding house for scholars (Hobson v. … In Gannett v.

Dorrian v. Davis

105 N.J. Eq. 147 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Sep 26, 1929

In Brown v. Brown, 96 N.J. … In Riehl v. Riehl, 101 N.J.

Brady v. Atlantic City

53 N.J. Eq. 440 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1895

Stout v. Slocum, 7 Dick. Ch. Rep. 89. So long as the judgment of the circuit court stands unreversed, the important questions which were present and decided in Mahon v. Halstead, 10 Vr. 640 , and O’Neill v. … Johnson, 1 Stock. 401 , and Black v. Delaware &c. Co., 9 C. E. Gr. 455, and Mills v. Central Railroad Co., 14 Stew. Eq. 1.

Douma v. Powers

92 N.J. Eq. 25 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 2, 1920

Stevenson, V. C. … Browne on Fraud. (5th ed.) § 505. In Whitehead v. Burgess (1887), 61 N. J. Law 75, 76, Mr.

Andreula v. Slovak Gymnastic, C., No. 223

138 N.J. Eq. 257 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 25, 1946

Some of the cases in this state are: McKibben v. Brown, 14 N.J. Eq. 13 ; Welsh v. Bayaud, 21 N.J. Eq. 186 ; Domestic Telegraph Co. v. Metropolitan Telephone Co., 39 N.J. Eq. 160 ; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N.J. … Eq. 256 ), or at a price offered by another upon a certain event, and accepted ( Race v. Groves, 43 N.J. Eq. 284 ; Hayes v. O'Brien, 149 Ill. 403 , or the appraisal of arbitrators. Woodruff v. Woodruff, supra.

Torrey v. Buck

2 N.J. Eq. 366 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1840

That he had fifty dollars in the bills of the company, twelve dollars of which he gave away, and thiity-eight dollars of it he gave to his landlord to snake him such allowance on his board as he could get for them. … A suppressio veri is as good a reason for setting aside a conveyance as a suggestio falsi: Broderick v. Broderick, 1 Peere Williams, 239 ; Pearson v. Morgan, 2 Brown's Chan. Cases, 389.

Jansch v. Jansch

95 N.J. Eq. 143 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 23, 1923

This is a suit for divorce from bed and board on the ground of extreme cruelty. … Chancellor Williamson, in the case of Endicott v. Mathis, 9 N. J.

Daniele v. Burlington Real Estate & Manufacturing Co.

84 N.J. Eq. 53 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 17, 1914

The evidence offered in behalf of defendant fully establishes that no such authority had in fact been conferred by the board of directors. … Mott has testified that he informed complainant that the contract was made subject to ratification by the board of directors of the corporation.