Cook v. Weigley

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Cook v. Weigley

65 A. 480, 69 N.J. Eq. 836, 1906 N.J. LEXIS 140

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 2, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 A. 480 (Cook v. Weigley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cook v. Weigley, 65 A. 480, 69 N.J. Eq. 836, 1906 N.J. LEXIS 140 (N.J. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. The appellants seek, by a petition, verified in the most general form, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court of chancery of this state to entertain a bill to foreclose a mortgage upon lands lying in New York bay, west of the middle line thereof. The challenge is sought to be interposed, in the summary way mentioned, not only after the conclusion of a, protracted litigation in the court of chancery, which resulted in a decree of foreclosure, but after an appeal from that decree to and an affirmation thereof by this court. Without at all intimating any dissent from the opinion expressed by the learned vice-chancellor upon the merits, we affirm the order appealed from upon the ground that the validity of a decree of the court of chancery, after it has been affirmed [837]*837by this court, cannot be brought into question by a petition filed in the court of chancery. A bill of review is the only proceeding by which such a decree may be challenged, and it may not be done even by that proceeding unless the conditions exist which justify the filing of such a bill. We have had occasion lately (in Watkinson v. Watkinson, 68 N. J. Eq. 632) to point out what those conditions are, and it is not necessary to restate them.

For affirmance—The Ohiee-Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Garretson, Pitney, Swayze, Eeed, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Green, Gray, Dill—12.

For reversal—Hone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. The appellants seek, by a petition, verified in the most general form, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court of chancery of this state to entertain a bill to foreclose a mortgage upon lands lying in New York bay, west of the middle line thereof. The challenge is sought to be interposed, in the summary way mentioned, not only after the conclusion of a, protracted litigation in the court of chancery, which resulted in a decree of foreclosure, but after an appeal from that decree to and an affirmation thereof by this court. Without at all intimating any dissent from the opinion expressed by the learned vice-chancellor upon the merits, we affirm the order appealed from upon the ground that the validity of a decree of the court of chancery, after it has been affirmed [837]*837by this court, cannot be brought into question by a petition filed in the court of chancery. A bill of review is the only proceeding by which such a decree may be challenged, and it may not be done even by that proceeding unless the conditions exist which justify the filing of such a bill. We have had occasion lately (in Watkinson v. Watkinson, 68 N. J. Eq. 632) to point out what those conditions are, and it is not necessary to restate them.

For affirmance—The Ohiee-Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Garretson, Pitney, Swayze, Eeed, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Green, Gray, Dill—12.

For reversal—Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A. 480, 69 N.J. Eq. 836, 1906 N.J. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-weigley-nj-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack