Legal Opinion

Drost v. Hall

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 15, 1893Published

On demurrer.

1Opinion of the Court

Van Fleet, V. C.

This is a suit for dower. The defendants deny, by demurrer, that the case made by the bill entitles the complainant to any decree against them. The material averments of the bill are r that the complainant and Henry G~. Drost intermarried in 1849; in 1850 Henry became the owner in fee of a tract of land in Middlesex county; in 1851 he conveyed part of it to one Miles Oakley; the complainant joined in the execution of the deed, but, as she was then an infant, less than seventeen years of age, her right in the land did not pass; Henry died in 1881 — it is not stated whether he…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hurd v. GrantNew York Supreme Court · 1829
  2. Seaton v. JamisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838

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

Powered by the Exa API