Stoddard v. Van Bussum
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Heard on bill, answer and proofs. The object of the bill is to revive and enforce a decree for the payment of money. The defence is the statute of limitations. The question is as to the actual date of the decree. The facts are undisputed. In October, 1876, James E. Stoutenburgh, administrator with the will annexed of Albert R. Terhune, filed his bill against the defendant, Van Bussum, and wife and others to foreclose a mortgage securing a bond made by Van Bussum to Terhune.
Read the full summary
Heard on bill, answer and proofs. The object of the bill is to revive and enforce a decree for the payment of money. The defence is the statute of limitations. The question is as to the actual date of the decree. The facts are undisputed. In October, 1876, James E. Stoutenburgh, administrator with the will annexed of Albert R. Terhune, filed his bill against the defendant, Van Bussum, and wife and others to foreclose a mortgage securing a bond made by Van Bussum to Terhune. Van Bussum was duly served with process, and made no defence. Such proceedings were had in the cause that, on the 6th…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
The question raised on the case made is somewhat nice, and its solution depends in part upon the construction of certain statutes which I will state.
The fourteenth section of the Limitation act (Gen. Stat. p. 1975) provides as follows:
*37“ That judgments in any court of record in this state may be revived by scire facias, or any action of debt may be brought thereon within twenty years next after the date of such judgment, and not after.”
The fifty-sixth section of the Chancery act (Gen. Stat. p. 382) provides as follows:
“ That the decree of the court of chancery shall, from the time…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Roll v. ReaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
3Cited by22 opinions
- Young v. VailNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
- Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. ComptonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- Barber v. BaileySupreme Court of Vermont · 1912
- Ryan v. QuinlanMontana Supreme Court · 1912
- In Re Riggi Bros. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.