Legal Opinion
Kahn v. Rockhill
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided March 16, 1942No. Docket 139/384PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The complainant seeks the allowance of an order striking out certain paragraphs of the answer filed by the defendants, Fred Davis Rockhill, Mary C. Rockhill and Marion L. Rockhill The reasons assigned are that the averments of paragraphs 10, 14, 19, 20 and 23 of the answer to the first cause of action and paragraphs 3 and 5 of the answer to the second cause of action are sham and that paragraphs 7 and 11 of the answer to the first cause of action are frivolous. R.S. 2:29-46. The complainant is the trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Fred Davis Rockhill.
An examination of the bill of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Dooley v. PeaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Spindle v. ShreveSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- In re the estate of BuzbySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
- Clark v. MorehousNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1908
- County Commissioners of Howard County v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kahn v. RockhillNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
- Maihack v. MehlNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948