Legal Opinion

Hanson v. Levy

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided December 5, 1947No. Docket 159/223PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In the present suit for the partition of a designated parcel of real estate situate in Hamilton Township, Mercer County, the defendant Monroe Levy in his representative capacity as administrator pendente lite of the estate of William Hanson, deceased, has in response to the bill of complaint filed an answer analogous to the obsolete plea in bar. Chancery Rule 70. Epitomized, the answer in lieu of plea avers that in the circumstances therein stated, the complainants have no interest or estate in the property which entitles either of them to prosecute the alleged cause of action. The answer is…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Haughwout & Pomeroy v. MurphySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1871
  2. Cranstoun v. WestendorfNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1919
  3. Siesel v. MandevilleNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  4. Bouvier v. Baltimore & New York RailwaySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902
  5. Braun v. MullerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Horton v. HortonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
  2. Righter v. First Reformed Church of BoontonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
  3. Courtney v. HansonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
  4. Courtney v. HansonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  5. Lanes v. Bank of MontclairNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API