Legal Opinion

Mesiavech v. Newman

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided April 27, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The complainants seek to foreclose a possible equity of redemption which may exist in favor of the defendants, who are tenants in possession of the premises; they having been omitted as parties defendants in the original foreclosure suit in which a decree was entered, and a sale had thereunder. In re Monroe v.Smarak et al. (Chancery Docket 100, page 662).

Monroe was the complainant in the conventional foreclosure proceeding. He purchased the property, described in the bill of complaint, at the sheriff's sale, at a nominal bid of $100. He conveyed the premises to one Ross, who afterward…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. McKeonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
  2. Boteler v. LeberNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
  3. Olive v. LevyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  4. Shepard v. BarrettNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1915
  5. Hinners v. BirkevaagNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. GUTTENBERG S. & L. ASS'N, CORP. v. RiveraSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  2. Patsourakos v. KolioutosNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
  3. Thomson v. Van BurenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API