Legal Opinion

Borough of Vineland v. Maretti

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 6, 1922PublishedCited by 16 opinions

On motion to strike out bill of complaint.

1Opinion of the Court

Walker, Chancellor.

The bill is one for discovery and accounting. The defendant moves to strike it out for sundry reasons, among them, that there is no municipal corporation bearing the name “The Board of Commissioners of the Borough of Vineland.” The motion to strike is coupled with an anshver to be used as a defensive pleading in case the motion is denied. Counsel for defendant says in his brief that defendant, answering under a misapprehension, admitted that the complainant, by the above name, is a municipal corporation, but praj^s leave to amend Ms answer in that behalf so that he may…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Warren v. HolbrookMichigan Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Christiansen v. Local 680, Milk Drivers, C.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
  2. Johnson v. King-Richardson Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1930
  3. State v. BrownSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1952
  4. Mumford v. CroftSuperior Court of Delaware · 1952
  5. Maihack v. MehlNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948

11 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