Legal Opinion
Sarson v. Maccia
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided June 3, 1919PublishedCited by 12 opinions
On bill, &c.
1Opinion of the Court
Backes, V. C.
The complainant seeks to restrain the defendant from prosecuting her action in the supreme court to recover damages for an alleged deceit, on the ground that the cause of action has been determined by this court on its merits, adversely to the defendant, and is res adjucHcata.
The defendant sold to the complainant her property in Newark, and took in pajnnent $1,100 in cash, a promissory note of one Park for $800, and a certain mortgage of $1,500. The mortgage was a second mortgage and was barred and wiped out by a foreclosure sale under the first mortgage shortly after the deal…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Packet Co. v. SicklesSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown Steam-Packet Co. v. SicklesSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Simpson v. HartNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
- Marsh v. . MastertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by12 opinions
- Johnston-Crews Co. v. FolkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Phillips v. PhillipsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
- Sacks v. SteckerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1941
- Johnson v. Carolina Life InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.