King v. Wilson
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Upon petition for injunction. The facts of this case are the following: Prior to the 21st day of November, 1886, the defendants Mary Jane Wilson and her brother, Henry R. Wilson, were the owners, as tenants in common, of a tract of land in the county of Atlantic, containing about three hundred and twenty acres, the said Mary Jane Wilson being the owner of an equal undivided two-thirds part, and the said Henry R. Wilson being the owner of an equal undivided one-third part…
Read the full summary
Upon petition for injunction. The facts of this case are the following: Prior to the 21st day of November, 1886, the defendants Mary Jane Wilson and her brother, Henry R. Wilson, were the owners, as tenants in common, of a tract of land in the county of Atlantic, containing about three hundred and twenty acres, the said Mary Jane Wilson being the owner of an equal undivided two-thirds part, and the said Henry R. Wilson being the owner of an equal undivided one-third part thereof. On that day a writ of attachment was issued out of the supreme court, at the suit of Ralph H. Conover, against…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
The defendant was permitted on the hearing of the petition to prove any facts which tended to show that he had any defence to the complainant’s equity against him set out in his bill, or any ground to vary the decree which had been made. In this he failed.
By the fifty-third section of the Attachment act (Rev. 1877 p. 51) the complainant’s title relates back to the date of the issuing of the attachment, and that date in this case was, confessedly, anterior to the date of the lease. This was conceded by defendant’s counsel. He put himself upon the ground that his client was an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Devaucene v. DevauceneNew York Court of Chancery · 1832
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nystrom v. PennycookNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954