Borough of Vineland v. Maretti
New Jersey Court of Chancery
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
- Warren v. HolbrookMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by16 opinions
- Christiansen v. Local 680, Milk Drivers, C.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
- Johnson v. King-Richardson Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1930
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1952
- Mumford v. CroftSuperior Court of Delaware · 1952
- Maihack v. MehlNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.