Suffern v. Butler
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Argued on pleadings and proofs. The bill is filed: 1st, to quiet the title of complainants, that is to establish their right, and is to some extent in the nature of a bill for specific performance. - 2d, for injunction. The defendants deny that they ever made any such contract. The contract is of a character that courts will not aid if they can help it. It is on its face, a contract by which no money is to be paid to the defendants, only a royalty.
Read the full summary
Argued on pleadings and proofs. The bill is filed: 1st, to quiet the title of complainants, that is to establish their right, and is to some extent in the nature of a bill for specific performance. - 2d, for injunction. The defendants deny that they ever made any such contract. The contract is of a character that courts will not aid if they can help it. It is on its face, a contract by which no money is to be paid to the defendants, only a royalty. Defendants held two hundred and eighty acres of lan,d, whose great value consisted in a mine or mines. If the mine should turn out to be a good…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The complainants claim the right to mine and take away iron ore from the lands of the defendants, in the county of Bergen. The defendants are in possession of the lands, deny the right of the complainants, and forbid and prevent them from entering and taking ore. The object of the bill is, to establish the right claimed by the complainants, and to restrain the defendants perpetually from interfering with, or obstructing its exercise.
The complainants found their claim on an instrument which they term a mining lease, and which they allege was made by the defendants on the 31st…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pattberg v. GottNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- Morris v. LeddyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932