Legal Opinion

Foley v. Kirk

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 15, 1880PublishedCited by 4 opinions

On final hearing on bill, answer and proofs taken before a master.

1Opinion of the Court

The Vice-Chancellor.

The principal object of the bill in this case is to compel the defendant to surrender, for cancellation, five declarations of sale, which the complainants allege were,, long ago, fully paid, and are, consequently without legal force, but which they say the defendant intends, wrongfully, to put in evidence against them on the trial of an action of ejectment, which they have brought against him, and that their production in evidence will very seriously imperil their just rights.

The facts material to the controversy, which are either admitted or so fully proved as to be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. CummingsNew York Court of Chancery · 1815
  2. Plympton v. Boston DispensaryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  3. Shannon v. WattNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916
  4. Stilwell v. DoughtyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1853

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hyland v. KirkmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1985
  2. East Newark Realty Corp. v. DolanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  3. Barry, Inc. v. Baf, LimitedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  4. E. Rutherford Sav. L. B. v. PacificoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API