Legal Opinion

Brown v. Brown

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided July 12, 1913PublishedCited by 6 opinions

On motion to strike out bill under rule 213.

1Opinion of the Court

Walker, Chancellor.

In substance, the bill of complaint prays that the wife’s inchoate right of dower in the lands described in the bill of complaint, held in trust for her husband, be protected. The facts admitted on this motion are: That Harry F. Brown, the husband of the complainant, purchased the lands; that he paid the purchase-money; that he fraudulently for the purpose of depriving his wife of her dower interest, caused the lands to be *41conveyed to his brother, Oliver, who now holds the same in trust—an equitable estate in fee—for him; the implication that the lands may be conveyed by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Buzick v. BuzickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
  2. Clifford v. . KampfeNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  3. Madigan v. WalshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Talcott v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
  2. Siesel v. MandevilleNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  3. Oscsenda v. OscsendaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  4. Nemeth v. NemethNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  5. Wildeman v. WildemanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925

1 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