Legal Opinion

Pruden v. Williams

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1875PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On demurrer to bill.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

This suit is brought to compel the defendants, Edward P. Williams, Simeon J. Ahern, Alexander M. W. Ball, and Emily A. Kent, to pay the deficiency which exists after the application of the proceeds of the sale of certain mortgaged premises under foreclosure, to the amount due on the mortgage. The premises were mortgaged by John M. Pruden., *211then the owner thereof, to the complainant. Pruden then sold them, subject to the mortgage, to the defendant, 'Williams, nho, by the deed, assumed the •• • incut of the mortgage. The premises were, in like mus -ror, by consecutive…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  2. Burr v. . BeersNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
  3. Halsey v. ReedNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
  4. Curtis v. TylerNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
  5. Marsh v. PikeNew York Court of Chancery · 1844

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Reeves v. CordesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  2. Mann v. BugbeeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
  3. Howell v. BakerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  4. Kamens v. AndersonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  5. Wittson v. Englewood Plumbing Supply Co., Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1937

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API