Legal Opinion
Maihack v. Mehl
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided February 10, 1948No. Docket 158/363PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The factual circumstances revealed by the complainant's bill of complaint fail, say the defendants, to constitute a cause of action cognizable by this court. I do not regard it necessary to restate them at length.
An application made, as here, in pursuance of rule 69 is the modern equivalent of a demurrer under the early practice and normally carries with it, for immediate purposes, an acknowledgment of the truth of all the material and adequately pleaded factual charges of the bill. Vineland v. Maretti,93 N.J. Eq. 513, 518; 117 Atl. Rep. 483; Kuskin v. Guttman,98 N.J. Eq. 617; 130 Atl. Rep.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Christiansen v. Local 680, Milk Drivers, C.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
- Borough of Vineland v. MarettiNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- East Paterson v. KarkusNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945
- Dorman v. Crooks State BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
- Strauss v. RabeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kisselbach v. County of CamdenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1994
- Matter of Estate of HeadNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
- Amir v. D'AGOSTINONew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1998
- Drachenberg v. DrachenbergNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Poppe v. TauteNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980