Newbold v. Fenimore
Supreme Court of New Jersey
The action was brought on a promissory note made by ■defendants’ testator to the order of plaintiffs, as trustees for Mary F. and Thomas Newbold.
Read the full summary
The action was brought on a promissory note made by ■defendants’ testator to the order of plaintiffs, as trustees for Mary F. and Thomas Newbold. One of defendants’ pleas set up a surrogate’s order, requiring creditors of testator to exhibit claims under oath, &c., within a limited period, and proceedings thereon resulting in a decree of the Orphans’ Court barring all creditors who had not thus exhibited their claims, made June 11th, 1890 (which was after the commencement of the suit), and averred that plaintiffs had not exhibited the claim sued upon within the ■time limited. Plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Magie, J.
In support of the demurrer, it is first contended, that the decree set up in the plea is no defence to plaintiffs’ action, because, while it is admitted that no claim was exhibited by them to the executors (defendants) within *308the time limited in the surrogate’s order, yet the record shows-that their action was brought before the expiration of that time.
No question is raised as to the mode in which the decree,, made after the commencement of the action, has been pleaded..
The point presented by this contention must be determined! by a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Clayton v. DinwoodeyUtah Supreme Court · 1908
- Philadelphia Saving Fund Society v. DisstonPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1937
- Emson v. AllenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
- Forwood v. ESTATE OF DAVID W. GREENNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956