Legal Opinion

New Jersey Mortgage & Investment Co. v. Dorsey

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 21, 1960PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division opinion, 60 N. J. Super. 299 (1960). The nature of the case is such, however, that some additional observations are desirable.

Plaintiff relied in large measure on Colonial Discount Co. v. Bures, 8 N. J. Misc. 124 (Sup. Ct. 1930), affirmed o. b. 107 N. J. L. 374 (E. & A. 1931), to sustain the right to recover. It cannot escape attention that the per curiam opinion there, which cites no cases or authorities, contains no discussion of the defense of fraud in the factum. We have examined the original record…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Muscoda State Bank v. KolarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Batka, Francis J. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
  2. Ross v. RichterDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  3. NJ MTGE. AND INVEST. CO. v. DorseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  4. Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
  5. Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API