Legal Opinion

In Re Hayden

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided November 5, 1927PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Upon the return of a rule to show cause why the respondent, Joseph P. Hayden, a solicitor in chancery, should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of the power, authority and dignity of the court of chancery of New Jersey, in falsely and fraudulently uttering and delivering a supposititious decree and certification thereof to Gertrude Griffith, falsely called Ferme, and by false and fraudulent pretenses procuring from her the sum of $300, and why he should not forthwith repay to her such sum, Hayden, the respondent, did not appear. He had been duly served with true and certified copies of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
  2. In re the Release or Relinquishment of the Right of Dower of MartinNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916
  3. In re McCravenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916
  4. Brown v. BrownNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
  5. O'Rourke v. ClevelandSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1892

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Manda v. StateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
  2. Swanson v. SwansonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  3. Caruso v. CarusoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  4. Dorrian v. DavisNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  5. Schwartz v. SchwartzNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961

3 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