Legal Opinion

South Camden Trust Co. v. Stiefel

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided April 14, 1927PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Complainant has moved to strike out defendant's counter-claim as "sham and untrue."

By the 1915 supplement to our Chancery act (P.L. 1915 p. 185 § 4) legislative sanction is given to striking out, on notice, "any frivolous or sham defense." But no legislation or rule of court specifically contemplates a motion of that nature against either a bill or counter-claim. By the same act (P.L. 1915 p.195 §§ 54, 55) cross-bills are abolished, and any matter theretofore the proper subject of a cross-bill is authorized to be set up by a counter-claim, and a counter-claim is there defined as a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Weidmann Silk Dyeing Co. v. East Jersey Water Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1918
  2. Baum's Castorine Co. v. ThomasNew York Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Moore v. MooreNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1908
  4. Stanbery v. BakerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1897

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lettieri v. MistrettaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  2. Engler v. BuesserSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
  3. Rapps v. TulenkoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
  4. Scarano v. ScaranoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
  5. Turnbull v. Eight Creditors Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931

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