Legal Opinion
Magie v. Reynolds
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided February 15, 1893PublishedCited by 11 opinions
Final hearing on pleadings and proofs produced orally in court.
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
This is, in form, a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The mortgagors, Reynolds and wife, set up fraud in its procurement, aud by cross-bill ask that it be delivered up to be canceled.
The ultimate question in the cause is, which of two innocent parties — the complainant on.the one side, or Reynolds and his *115wife on the other — shall suffer by the fraudulent practices of a third party?
The mortgage sought to be foreclosed was executed by the defendants Reynolds and wife to Emma A. Sumner, the wife of Perrin H. Sumner, on the 2d of January, 1889; it was assigned by Mrs. Sumner to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carpenter v. LonganSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Freeman v. . AuldNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Horton v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Ritter v. . PhillipsNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
3Cited by11 opinions
- Great Falls Bank v. PardoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
- Carnegie Bank v. ShalleckNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1992
- Boysun v. BoysunMontana Supreme Court · 1962
- Atlantic Seaboard Co. v. Borough of Seaside ParkNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
- Di Giovacchini v. TeichNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.