Legal Opinion

Coogan v. McCarren

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 15, 1892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

On motion to strike out bill under two hundred and fifteenth rule.

1Opinion of the Court

Pitney, V. C.

This is a motion to strike out the bill under the two hundred and fifteenth rule, instead of a demurrer.

The bill is in the nature of a cross-bill, and is a continuation of the litigation dealt with in an opinion reported sub mom. McCarren v. Coogan, 5 Dick. Ch. Rep. 268 ; 24. Atl. Rep. 1033.

The bill here drawn in question was filed after the promulgation of that opinion and before the order dismissing the bill of McCarren was actually signed in accordance with the opinion. It sets out the same facts comprised in that bill: the giving of the bond and mortgage by Tomney to one…

2Cases cited1 opinion

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Crowe v. De GioiaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
  2. Scott v. ScottNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
  3. Rose v. MaxwellNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API