Bulat v. Londrigan
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On final hearing on bill, answer and proofs taken in open court.
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V: C.
The complainant Bulat is in possession under color of title, and claims to be the owner of a parcel of real estate, situate in Hoboken, in this state. The complainant Stevens is the holder of a mortgage thereon, given by the complainant Bulat and wife. They join as complainants in this bill for the purpose— first, of establishing the title of Bulat to the land in question, as against the defendants, and second, to perpetually restrain an action of ejectment brought by defendants against Bulat in the circuit court of the county of Hudson.
The complainants give as a reason for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kirk v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Dimond v. ManheimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Ogden v. KipNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
3Cited by5 opinions
- Raniere v. I & M INVESTMENTS INC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
- EVCCO Leasing Corp. v. Ace Trucking Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Alt v. KwiatekNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1941
- Group v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- In Re Evcco Leasing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987