Case law

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.

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.

Brown v. Warden

44 N.J.L. 177 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1882

That they were not of a character to give cognizance of them to a Court of Errors was expressly declared in Hogencamp v. Ackerman & Brown, 4 Zab. 133. … The record must be amended, and to that end the defendant in error should allege diminution and issue a certiorari in the mode appointed in Apgar’s Adm’rs v. Hiler, 4 Zab. 808.

Brown v. Hoy

16 N.J.L. 157 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1837

Cited in Cheddick’s Ex’r v. Marsh, 1 Zab. 466.

State v. Brown

289 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1996

THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED THRESHOLD TO TRIGGER THE COURT’S SCRUTINY UNDER STATE V. MURPHY OR R. 3:6-3(a). … Following argument, the judge concluded that under State v.

Brown v. Trenton

140 N.J. Eq. 539 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 6, 1947

Barrett v. Barrett, 134 N.J. Eq. 138 ; 34 Atl. Rep. 2d 579; Bottomley v. Bottomley, 134 N.J. Eq. 279 ; 35 Atl. Rep. 2d 475. I advise the complainant that under the terms of the present will, Isabella M. … Salem National Bank and Trust Co. v. Elkinton, 139 N.J. Eq. 429 ; 51 Atl. Rep. 2d 889.

Henry v. Brown

8 N.J. Eq. 245 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 15, 1850

The persons to whom Brown has mortgaged the house and lot, since he received the sheriffs deed therefor, should he made defendants. The hill may he amended in this respect also.

Merritt v. Brown

21 N.J. Eq. 401 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1869

In Combs v. Little, 3 Green’s Ch. 310, the statute of frauds was not pleaded, and in that case, as also in Marlatt v. Warwick, 4 C. E. … Brown for any risks he might run himself by doing this favor to Mr. Merritt. This is my understanding of it; I understood it from Mr. Brown, as my conversation was with him.”

State v. Brown

107 N.J. 53 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 16, 1986

Tonelli v. Board of Education

185 N.J. 438 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 28, 2005

The *442 Board countered that our recent decisions in O’Connell v. State, 171 N.J. 484 , 795 A.2d 857 (2002), and Ryan v. … Brown, 37 N.J. 189, 199 , 180 A.2d 136 (1962), it seems to us that the Board is intrinsically distinct from the denominated entities.

Brown v. Dunn

50 N.J.L. 111 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1887

Superintendent v. Heath, 2 McCart. 22; Bower v. Blue Stone Co., 3 Stew. Eq. 171; S. C., 3 Stew. Eq. 340; Shannon v. Hoboken, 10 Stew. Eq. 123; S. C., 10 Stew. Eq. 318; Kirtland v. Moore, 13 Stew. Eq. 106. … Stebbins v. Walker, 2 Green 90; Cox v. Marlatt, 7 Vroom 389 ; Belton v. Gibbons, 7 Halst. 76; Sloan v. Sommers, 2 Green 509; Terney v. Wilson, 16 Vroom 282 .

Guatelli v. Brown

84 N.J. Eq. 33 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 13, 1915

Stevens, V. C. This is a bill which prays for a decree that a mortgage given by complainant to Henry C. Beach be declared void because procured by fraud. … It is held, in Bogart v. Stevens, 69 N. J.

Atlantic City v. Brown

71 N.J.L. 81 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1904

In the case of Fonsler v. Atlantic City, 41 Vroom 125 , this court conceded that Atlantic City had power to pass section 2 of the ordinance. … In Fonsler v.

Brown v. Pinniger

81 N.J. Eq. 229 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 27, 1913

In the argument the counsel of the demurrant relied upon Schenck v. Spring Lake Beach Improvement Co., 47 N. J. Eq. (2 Dick.) 44; Clement v. Young-McShea Amusement Co., 70 N. J. Eq. (4 Robb.) 677; Stengel v. … Green v. Richards, 23 N. J. Eq. (8 C. E. Gr.) 32; Cramer v. Mooney, 59 N. J. Eq. (14 Dick.) 164; Krah v. Wassmer et al., 75 N. J. Eq. (5 Buch.) 109; affirmed in 78 N. J. Eq. (8 Buch.) 305.

Brown v. Turpan

122 N.J. Eq. 305 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Sep 1, 1937

Brown. None of these persons were blood relatives of Alice V. Praed, the wife of the testator, except the complainant, who was her brother. *Page 307 Alice V. Praed made a will which was dated April 2d 1926. … Brown, share and share alike to belong to each of them absolutely.

Matzner v. Brown

288 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 18, 1968

State v. Kavanaugh, 52 N.J. 7 , 243 A.2d 225 . … The matter of fixing a trial date in the ease of State v.