Legal Opinion
Monroe v. De Forest
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided February 15, 1895PublishedCited by 2 opinions
On exceptions to master’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
Bird, V. C.
Dix & Phyfe claim to be creditors of the deceased testatrix. They hold a promissory note which was drawn by 'William H. De Forest, Jr., to the order of William H. De Forest, Sr., and endorsed by the latter, and also endorsed by the deceased testatrix, who was the wife of the- first endorser. At the time of the ■execution of the note a bond was given by the maker of the note in the sum of $60,000, for the payment of. $30,000, with interest, which bond was secured by a mortgage on certain lots on One Hundred and Forty-fourth street and on Seventy-sixth street in New York city. At the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miller v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Austin v. . MunroNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Sumner v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Schmittler v. . SimonNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Guild v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Boorstein v. MillerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1938
- Van Hoesen v. GelfenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928