Stiles v. Galbreath
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill for surplus money, answers and proofs. The original bill of complaint in this cause is filed by Arthur Stiles and John McOlay, partners, trading as Stiles & McOlay. It seeks a decree that certain surplus money under the control of this court in a foreclosure' suit, wherein Stiles- &. McOlay were complainants and Mary S. Galbreatli and others were defendants, may be decreed to be paid to the complainants, Stiles & McOlay.
Read the full summary
On bill for surplus money, answers and proofs. The original bill of complaint in this cause is filed by Arthur Stiles and John McOlay, partners, trading as Stiles & McOlay. It seeks a decree that certain surplus money under the control of this court in a foreclosure' suit, wherein Stiles- &. McOlay were complainants and Mary S. Galbreatli and others were defendants, may be decreed to be paid to the complainants, Stiles & McOlay. The original bill filed in this cause made defendants Mary S. Galbreatli, the owner of the equity of redemption, and others her creditors, who claimed interests or…
1Opinion of the Court
Grey, Y. 0.
As the bill was originally filed, the complainant in this case sought to have the surplus money arising under the foreclosure sale decreed to be subject to and applicable for the payment of the lien claims, not only of the complainants, but also of such other lien claims as might be adjudged to be valid liens against the mortgaged premises, without disputing the validity of thé defendants’ lien claims, or seeking for the complainants any preferential consideration in the application of the surplus money. The original bill dealt with the surplus in the foreclosure suit as if it were…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gould v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Weinberger v. GoldsteinNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Jersey Bond, C., Co. v. Wesp Bldg. Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
- Western Beverage Co. v. Hansen Et Ux.Utah Supreme Court · 1939