Legal Opinion

Ireland v. Kelly

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided August 25, 1900PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On bill for interpleader, &c. Motion to strike out bill, &c.

1Opinion of the Court

Grey, V. C.

The defendant Kelly has fully answered the bill. She now moves to strike it out under rule 213, “for the reason that the bill, if true, does not show the proper case for interpleader, and for the further cause that the answers filed by the defendant in this suit show that it is not a proper case for interpleader.”

The motion of the defendant is equivalent to a demurrer to the bill, which she has chosen to answer fully. The rule invoked provides that “any objections to a pleading or any part thereof may be made and adjudicated upon without the filing of a demurrer or exceptions,” &c.

T…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Doane & Jones Lumber Co. v. Essex Building & Land Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1900
  2. Packard v. StevensNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1899

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Clarke & Cohen v. Real Ex Rel. Stroudsburg Nat. BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Matlack v. KlineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
  3. Republic Casualty Co. v. FischmannNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  4. Equitable Life Assurance Society v. KelseyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1938
  5. 536 Broad St. Corp. v. Valco Mortgage Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API