Legal Opinion
Kinmonth v. White
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided April 20, 1901PublishedCited by 5 opinions
On motion to settle order of priorities between judgment creditors.
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
These were five separate bills filed to set aside certain conveyances made by a judgment defendant for the purpose, as alleged,, of defrauding the judgment creditors. No order of consolidation was made, but the causes were, by consent, tried together, and an opinion rendered which declared one conveyance fraudulent in toto, and the others fraudulent in part, as reported in 47 Atl. Rep. 1.
The order of priority of the judgments was as follows:
1. Pittenger’s judgment, recovered April 8th, 1898.
2. The Asbury Park and Ocean Grove Bank’s judgment, recovered April 11th, 1898; and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Miller v. SherrySupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Edmeston v. LydeNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Beck v. BurdettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Corning & Norton v. WhiteNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Allen v. MooreNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916
3Cited by5 opinions
- Young v. WeberNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
- Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Ritz Holding Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
- Swift Co. v. First Nat. Bank of HightstownNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
- Schneider v. SchmidtNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
- Walton v. HillierNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1941