Petty v. Young
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Ou appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Bird, who filed the following conclusions : I regret to say that there seems to be no path that I can discover which will lead me to advise a decree looking towards some final adjustment of the controversy between these parties. The bill is so framed that, as I understand the evidence, I can only advise that the bill be dismissed.
Read the full summary
Ou appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Bird, who filed the following conclusions : I regret to say that there seems to be no path that I can discover which will lead me to advise a decree looking towards some final adjustment of the controversy between these parties. The bill is so framed that, as I understand the evidence, I can only advise that the bill be dismissed. The defendant had it in her power to frame an issue by way of cross-bill, aud thus, in one suit, to settle her rights. She has simply answered the allegations in the bill. If the court had the power, it ought to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
Samuel Petty, Alfred Petty and Mary C. Young are children and administrators of Susan Petty, deceased. The present bill was filed by Samuel and Alfred against Mary, setting up that she was the holder of a promissory note, dated October 13th, 1881, made by Susan, for the payment of $3,000, with interest, on April 1st, 1883, to Mary or her order, and alleging that such note was fraudulently procured by Mary, was without considera*658tion, and was invalid. The bill prays that Mary may be decreed to surrender the note as void; but that, if the court…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. LawrenceNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re Estate of HoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Freitag v. BersanoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938
- Munson v. MunsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941