Legal Opinion

Breidenbach v. Breidenbach

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided September 19, 1941PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Initially we note that the appeal papers as they came to us, were entitled in the reverse order of parties. This was contrary to our rule 20.

Further, the only party defendant entitled to an appeal, so far as we can see, is Elsie H. Hub. No appearance was entered for Harry I. Breidenbaoh. No answer or other pleading was filed in his behalf, and a decree pro confesso was entered against him.

Appellant asserts that “The court erred in accepting and retaining jurisdiction” inasmuch as “it is the established practice of the Court of Chancery to decline jurisdiction over the accountings of executors…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1906

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Willits v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
  2. Matter of Estate of SiegelNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1987
  3. Breidenbach v. BreidenbachNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
  4. Willits v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
  5. Willits v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API