Legal Opinion

Burack v. Mayers

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided September 5, 1937Published

1Opinion of the Court

The bill, which prayed that defendant be restrained from prosecuting complainant at law, was dismissed for reasons stated in 121 N.J. Eq. 135; affirmed, 122 N.J. Eq. 5. The decree ordered complainant to pay defendant her costs to be taxed. Now defendant petitions that complainant be adjudged in contempt for failure to pay the same. Money decrees in chancery based on contract cannot be enforced by process of contempt where no special equities exist. Aspinwall v.Aspinwall, 53 N.J. Eq. 684; Smith v. Smith, 84 N.J. Eq. 299;Gault v. Gault, 112 N.J. Eq. 41; Krafte v. Belfus, 114 N.J. Eq. 207.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Adams v. AdamsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1912
  2. Burack v. MayersNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
  3. Burack v. MayersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
  4. Aspinwall v. AspinwallSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
  5. Gault v. GaultNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932

6 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