Legal Opinion

Maddock v. Connolly

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided June 5, 1913PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On final hearing on bill, answer, replication and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

Howell, V. C.

Whether a complainant seeks to establish a lost instrument such as a deed of conveyance or a will, or seeks to recover upon a lost instrument such as a mortgage, or a promissory note, the burden is on him in the first instance to prove that a document of the sort alleged in the bill once existed, that it was properly executed and delivered, that it has been lost, and that proper search has been made for it; and when these points shall have been proved the court will then take secondary evidence as to its contents. This rule manifestly casts the burden of proof on the party…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tayloe v. RiggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
  2. Scurry v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Connor v. PushorSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1894
  4. Day v. PhilbrookSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1897
  5. Moses v. MorseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1883

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wilson v. StevensNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  2. Farber v. Plainfield Trust Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945
  3. Zuckermandel v. ZuckermandelNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944
  4. Flohr v. SnyderNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
  5. STATE BY PARSONS v. Otis Elevator Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API