Legal Opinion

Hassell v. Van Houten

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 15, 1884PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Bill for relief. On final hearing on pleadings and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

This suit is brought to recover one-half of a fund, represented by a bank check, given by the Masonic Mutual Life Insurance Company, of Newark, in payment of the debt and interest due *106on the decree of this court in Van Houten v. Pine, 11 Stew. Eq. 72. For the taxed costs and interest thereon the company gave its check to the complainant in this suit, Abram M. Hassell, Esq., who was solicitor for the complainant (Mrs. Frances L. Van Houten) in that one, and for the debt and interest gave her its check payable to her order. That check was certified to be good by the bank on which…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. County of Dane v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Rowe v. Yuba CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. Gordon v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Case v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1868
  5. Eberhardt v. SchusterNew York Supreme Court · 1879

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Amer. Trial Lawyers Assoc. v. NJ Supreme Ct.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
  2. Hughes v. EisnerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  3. Hughes v. EisnerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  4. Estate of F.W. v. StateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2008
  5. Grimm v. FranklinNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API