Kirkhuff v. Kerr
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Reed, ■who delivered the following opinion : I am convinced that the attachment proceedings were instituted in New Jersey surreptitiously and for the purpose of getting a judgment against Mrs. Kirkhuff without her knowledge and therefore without a contest.
Read the full summary
On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Reed, ■who delivered the following opinion : I am convinced that the attachment proceedings were instituted in New Jersey surreptitiously and for the purpose of getting a judgment against Mrs. Kirkhuff without her knowledge and therefore without a contest. While the action in the Philadelphia court was still pending and while the validity of this ■very account was in issue, the proceedings in New Jersey were commenced and consummated. No notice, I am satisfied, was ever sent by the attorney of Mr. Kerr to Mrs. Kirkhuff of the existence of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
We think the circumstances of this case show quite clearly that the defendant Kerr used the attachment proceedings to effectuate a purpose which was in violation of the duty owed by him to the complainant.
*626Before instituting those proceedings he had acted for the complainant in taking charge of her real estate at Lavallette, and without notifying her distinctly that he gave up that trust, he issued the writ of attachment upon a claim which he then had in litigation with her in Pennsylvania, prosecuted it to judgment and by virtue thereof caused…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Delaware River Quarry & Construction Co. v. Board of Chosen FreeholdersNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1918
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nugent v. HayesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924