Case law

Lone v. Brown

103 N.J. 480 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 11, 1986

Conover v. Brown

29 N.J. Eq. 510 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1878

Brown v. Gotlieb

9 N.J. Misc. 930 · New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau · Jul 1, 1931

Herman Brown, the petitioner, refused to accept these and states he dropped one of the packages on the sidewalk. … Brown, and I am unable to accept the conclusion that the respondent is free from any responsibility in the matter.

Culver v. Brown

16 N.J. Eq. 533 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 1863

On the contrary the decree itself, as if by way of substitute for the legal notice, states that Brown, the minor, appeared by his guardian, David Yates.

Brown v. Simandl

93 N.J. Eq. 225 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 30, 1921

State v. Brown

76 N.J.L. 479 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 16, 1908

Brown v. Bissett

21 N.J.L. 46 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 15, 1847

Brown v. Bissett, 1 Zab. 273; Allen & Vail v. Agnew, 4 Zab. 444-446-447; Linford v. Linford & Lent, 4 Dutch. 116.

Merritt v. Brown

19 N.J. Eq. 286 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1868

It was so held by Chancellor Vroom, in Youle v. … This rule was very properly and clearly adopted and enforced by the late Chancellor, in Young’s adm’r v. Rathbone, 1 C. E. Green 224.

Merritt v. Brown

21 N.J. Eq. 134 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1870

The order of the Court of Appeals directed Brown to account to Merritt for the proceeds of twenty-five shares of stock transferred to him. … After the transfer, the company issued to Brown sixteen new shares of additional stock, for which Brown never paid, but -became responsible to the company for the amount, being $1600.

Wilson v. Brown

12 N.J. Eq. 246 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1859

Brown and Demarest made a general assignment, under the act, for the benefit of their creditors. Wilson and and two others of the complainants, as partners, had a judgment and execution against Brown and Demarest. … Brown and Demarest then made another assignment of the surplus in the hands of the assignee.

Brown v. Richards

17 N.J. Eq. 32 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1864

It was so held by the Chancellor (Williamson), in the unreported case of Doughty v. Doughty, at February Term, 1856.

Brown v. Carpenter

57 N.J. Eq. 23 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 1, 1898

A court of equity would not afford to the mortgagors the relief they ask, because of the principle which underlies the maxim in pari delicto, potior est conditio possidentis (Schenck v. Hart, 5 Stew. … Pillsbury v. Kingon, 6 Stew. Eq. 287, 291; Bump Fraud. Conv. (3d ed.) 446. As grantees of Gardner they are his representatives and succeed only to his rights. The demurrer will be sustained, with costs.

Wilson v. Brown

13 N.J. Eq. 277 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1861

Brown, who purchased at the sale, to pay the purchase money. … Brown as a valid security upon her separate property.

Brown v. Winans

3 N.J. Eq. 267 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1856

Brown v. Klein

133 N.J.L. 533 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 15, 1946

Wogish v. Board of Health, &c., 114 N. J. L. 261. … See, also, Kurinsky v. Board of Health, &c., et al., 128 N. J. L. 185; Earruso v. Board of Health, &c., 120 Id. 463.

Smith v. Brown

3 N.J.L. 1047 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1813

Satterly v. Brown

2 N.J.L. 163 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1807

Cited in Powers v. Seeley, 1 Harr. 216 . Vide ante, *141.

Satterly v. Brown

3 N.J.L. 162 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1807

Gould v. Brown

9 N.J.L. 166 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1827

In Moore v. Whitaker, Pen. 460, in trespass; and in Lippincott v. Smith, 1 South. 95, in case, the value of the property was not averred. … The case of Vandyke v. *211 Dodd, 1 Halst. 129, is more directly in point. The very objection was there taken.

Williamson v. Brown

10 N.J.L. 351 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1829

Although not precisely the same in point of fact, this case is within the principles on which the decision was made in Reed v. Rocap. Let the judgment be affirmed.