Legal Opinion

Loss v. Obry

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1871PublishedCited by 3 opinions

This cause was argued on final hearing, upon the pleadings and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chahcelloe.

The bill is filed to correct and reform two deeds given to the defendants, on account of mistakes in them. One of these deeds was given by the complainant, Anastasia Loss, and the other by Luke Stainsby, the special guardian of Jane O. Loss and Virginia L. Loss, infant children of Anastasia Loss, appointed by this court on her application for the *53sale of their lands. The lands sold were part of the real estate devised to Anastasia Loss and her two children, by the last will of her husband, Charles Loss. Stainsby, the special guardian, was authorized by an order made in this…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bradford v. President of the Union Bank of TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1852

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Italian-American B. L. Assn. v. RussoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941
  2. IDA LOTT VS. BOROUGH OF ROSELLE (C-000131-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2020
  3. IDA LOTT VS. BOROUGH OF ROSELLE (C-000131-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API