Munday v. Vail
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This was an action of ejectment. The premises in dispute, it was admitted, had been owned by one Asa Munday, under whom both parties claimed.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment. The premises in dispute, it was admitted, had been owned by one Asa Munday, under whom both parties claimed. On the part of the plaintiff in the court below, it was shown that on the 12th of May, 1841, the said Asa Munday, with his wife Hetty, conveyed the premises to John Conger in fee upon the following trust, to wit, “For the use and benefit of the said Asa Munday and wife, and the survivor of them, with the remainder to the children of the said Asa Munday and wife, in equal parts and.shares, in fee.” The-plaintiff was the sole surviving issue of Asa and…
1Opinion of the Court
Beasley, Chief Justice.
From the statement of facts prefatory to this opinion, it appears that Asa Munday settled his property in trust for the use of himself and wife and the survivor, for life, with remainder to his children. Asa Mun-day is dead, Matilda Vail, the plaintiff in the court below, being his sole issue. To her the widow and trustee released or conveyed their title and right in the premises. The defendant holds the property by virtue of a sheriff’s sale, under a decree for costs against Asa Munday, made a long time after the above-mentioned deed of trust. It, therefore, is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Corwithe v. GriffingNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by26 opinions
- In Re Marriage of HendrixSupreme Court of Missouri · 2006
- DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITYSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2015
- Webster Eisenlohr, Inc. v. KalodnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944
- Roberts v. Seaboard Surety CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1947
- Swanson v. SwansonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.