Legal Opinion

Harris v. Pearsall

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided June 24, 1914PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stevenson, V. C.

(orally).

I shall dispose of this case without regard to technicalities. There are a number of technical questions which arise in the *473case. We have two parties suing as complainants, whose interests are entirely distinct. IsTo objection has been made to the bill on the ground of multifariousness or misjoinder, and this is the sort of a case which very conveniently can be brought in that way, although an accurate analysis of the case would disclose two separate causes of action, which do not correlate. There is no difficulty in making a decree which covers the cases of both of…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Goldman South Brunswick v. SternNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
  2. Malba Terrace Corp. v. Portaupeck PropertiesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  3. Bruen v. SpannhakeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
  4. Simonson v. Z Cranbury AssociatesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API