Legal Opinion

Rapps v. Tulenko

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided January 25, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This matter is before the court on a motion to strike out the answer filed by defendants upon the ground — (1) said answer is frivolous and fails to set forth a sufficient defense; (2) the denials and affirmative defenses contained therein are false and sham, being interposed merely for the purpose of delay.

My consideration of the bill and answer and the affidavits filed by the respective parties on this motion actuates me in determining that the motion should be granted. The parties to the suit negotiated for the exchange of real estate. On July 20th, 1927, Jacob Rapps, son of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Strauss v. RabeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  2. Krah v. WassmerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1908
  3. Franklin v. WeltNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  4. Kamens v. AndersonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  5. South Camden Trust Co. v. StiefelNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. K & J Clayton Holding Corp. v. Keuffel & Esser Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
  2. Al-Sco Realty Co., Inc. v. Suburban Apt. Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
  3. Stillman Hoag, Inc. v. PeeckNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API