Legal Opinion
Seyfried v. Stoll
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided December 2, 1897PublishedCited by 6 opinions
On bill of interpleader.
1Opinion of the Court
Emery, V. C.
The complainant Mrs. Seyfried has paid into court, under decree made on a bill of interpleader, the sum of $588.98, being tbe amount due from her to the defendant Andrew Stoll, upon a building contract made with him for the erection of a house upon lands of Mrs. Seyfried.
*188The contest in the case arises between the defendants claiming priorities in the payment of the fund, which is not sufficient to pay all the claims in full. Their claims are set up in their respective answers, and the cause as between them is brought to hearing upon these answers pursuant to the general practice…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fourth Street Bank of Philadelphia v. YardleySupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Brill v. . TuttleNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re StigerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1913
- Structural Gypsum Corp. v. National, C., Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
- Lugenbuhl v. D. W. Feitel Bag Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1916
- Milford State Bank v. ParrishUtah Supreme Court · 1935
- Proctor v. United Stevedoring Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.