McGrath v. Norcross
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill to quiet title. On motion for new trial. The bill in this suit was filed by complainant pursuant to our statute (8 Gen. Slat. p. 8486), to quiet title to a tract of land in ' Atlantic county. Defendant answered, claiming title in himself. An issue at law was framed and tried in the supreme court and a verdict was there rendered by the jury in favor of defendant.
Read the full summary
On bill to quiet title. On motion for new trial. The bill in this suit was filed by complainant pursuant to our statute (8 Gen. Slat. p. 8486), to quiet title to a tract of land in ' Atlantic county. Defendant answered, claiming title in himself. An issue at law was framed and tried in the supreme court and a verdict was there rendered by the jury in favor of defendant. The proceedings in the law court have been duly returned to this court and complainant now moves for a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Leaming, V. C.
I regret that I have been compelled to reach the conclusion that a new trial in this case is necessary.
The rules which must control this court in motions of this nature have been recently defined by our court of errors and appeals in McAndrews & Forbes Co. v. City of Camden, November *122term, 1910. It is there held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the court of chancery by the statute under which this suit is brought is merely an extension of its ancient function of entertaining bills quia timei, and that on motions in this court for a new trial after a trial of an issue by the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Nadeau v. Texas CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1937
- Eckman v. BeihlSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- Mezey v. United Jersey BankNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1992
- Blum v. Jersey City Lumber Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1934