Holloway v. Appelget
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Reed, wbo delivered the following opinion : This bill is filed to restrain the defendant from setting up the statute of limitations in an action at law brought by the complainant against the defendant and now pending in the Mercer circuit. On March 5th, 1884, the defendant was the owner of four bonds of the city of Rahway.
Read the full summary
On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Reed, wbo delivered the following opinion : This bill is filed to restrain the defendant from setting up the statute of limitations in an action at law brought by the complainant against the defendant and now pending in the Mercer circuit. On March 5th, 1884, the defendant was the owner of four bonds of the city of Rahway. On that date he consulted Mr. A. S. Appelget, an attorney-at-law, concerning the collection of the said bonds. The result of the consultation was that they entered into a contract in the following terms: “ In consideration…
1Per curiam
Decree affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Depue, Garrison, Gummere, Lippincott, Van Syckel, Dayton, Hendrickson, Nixon — 9.
For reversal — Collins, Dixon, Ludlow, Bogert — 4.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Howard v. West Jersey, C., R.R. Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- Sun B. L. Assn. v. RashkesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936