Legal Opinion

Putnam v. Clark

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1878PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Bill for relief. On final hearing on pleadings and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The complainant, Mrs. Adah A. Putnam, was, on or about the 21st of April, 1871, the owner of a bond and mortgage for $12,000 and interest, given to her by Jane M. Mackay and her husband, on land in Jersey City. At *413that time those instruments were in the hands of her attorney, William C. Barrett, of the law firm of Barrett, Eedfield & Hill, of the city of New York. Being desirous of obtaining the money for them, with a view to a profitable re-investment of it, which was then offered to her, she applied to Barrett on the subject, and he told her that he thought he would be able…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Boehm v. BoehmNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1917
  2. Broad & Market National Bank v. LarsenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1917

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sabatino v. D'AloiseNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  2. Van Cleve v. MeyerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  3. Atlantic Guaranty C., Co. v. McDevittNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  4. Reddavide v. LaskowitzNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  5. Hofstetter v. BernettNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935

1 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