Schrafft v. Wolters
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from an order denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint, advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevens, who filed the following conclusions: Where there is a doubtful question, on a title, legal or equitable, the court will sometimes overrule the demurrer, without prejudice to any defence the defendant may make by way of answer. Brownswords v. Edwards, 2 Ves.
Read the full summary
On appeal from an order denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint, advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevens, who filed the following conclusions: Where there is a doubtful question, on a title, legal or equitable, the court will sometimes overrule the demurrer, without prejudice to any defence the defendant may make by way of answer. Brownswords v. Edwards, 2 Ves. Sr. 21/.7; Cochrane v. Willis, De G. J. & S. 229; Sheffield Water Works v. Yeomans, L. B. 2 Ch. App. 8. It seems to me that the case at bar is one to which this rule ought to be applied. It is quite evident, on a careful perusal of the…
1Per curiam
The respondent (who was the complainant below) is the sole devisee of Frederick E. Wolters, deceased. Although her bill contains no prayer for specific relief, it appears, from the brief of her counsel, that its object is to have a trust, created by a deed made to Frederick E. Wolters, in favor of the appellant Eose Mary Sclirafft, declared to be void, and the title to the property conveyed by the deed decreed to be in the respondent as tenant in fee-simple.
As was pointed out by the vice-chancellor who advised the order appealed from, many of the facts and circumstances upon which the effect…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Fishman v. FishmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945