B.H.K. Realty Co. v. Scarlet
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
The answer of the defendants admits in part the allegations of the bill of complaint and leaves the complainant to its proof as to the remainder of those allegations. The first separate defense set up in the answer is an attack upon the validity of the tax sale proceedings. While the motion to strike out the answer is directed to the whole of it, no proofs are submitted with respect to the allegations in the bill as to which the complainant is left to his proof, and the argument has been confined to the sufficiency of the first separate defense. It is admitted for the purpose of the motion…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rodgers v. CressmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
- Harrington Co. v. JonesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
3Cited by2 opinions
- North Bergen Twp. v. Luckenbach Terminals, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1941
- Township of Long Beach v. Daniel B. Frazier Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932