Legal Opinion

Stillman Hoag, Inc. v. Peeck

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided November 18, 1943No. Docket 139/293PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Defendants bring this motion to vacate a decree pro confesso and permitting them to file an answer in this suit for specific performance. Testimony was taken on the application. I do not consider that defendants have made out a case entitling them to the relief asked for.

Hackensack Trust Company foreclosed a mortgage on the real estate in question against defendants Peeck and Luedemann on a bond of $4,000. The premises were sold by the sheriff under decree and bid in by the mortgagor. A motion to confirm the sale was before the court. The motion to confirm was contested and was to come before…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kamens v. AndersonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  2. Lean v. LeedsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1921
  3. Avidan v. KaplanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  4. Rapps v. TulenkoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Al-Sco Realty Co., Inc. v. Suburban Apt. Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API