Woodbridge Strong & Sons v. Mundy
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from an order advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in Mundy v. Sohaniz, 7 Diok. Ch. Hep. 7^.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
In August, 1893, one of the executors of Benajah Mundy employed Wood bridge Strong & Sons, solicitors in chancery, to foreclose a mortgage upon lands in Middlesex county. The solicitors made the requisite searches, instituted the suit and carried it on to completion, resulting in a sale of the premises to a second mortgagee, for $2,306.41. This amount being paid' to the solicitors, they retained the taxed costs and the further sum of $150, which they claimed as a collection fee and for their services in the matter not embraced in the taxed-…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re PaschalSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Adams v. Stevens & CaggerNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Foster v. JackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cintas v. American Car Foundry Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
- Cohen v. CohenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
- Government Security Co. v. NassoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
- Toft v. KetchumSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
- Creditors' Holding Co. v. PerkinsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925