Dawson v. Amey

40 N.J. Eq. 494
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedOctober 15, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 N.J. Eq. 494 (Dawson v. Amey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dawson v. Amey, 40 N.J. Eq. 494 (N.J. Ct. App. 1885).

Opinion

Bird, Y. C.

The complainant asks to have his bill dismissed, on payment •of all costs to defendants. The defendants resist this, and say •that they are entitled to go to hearing on the answer, and answer by way of cross-bill, which they have filed. They claim that -they are entitled to relief as against the complainant, and that it would be doing great injustice to them to dismiss the original bill.

Since no testimony has been taken, I think the motion must be granted. But granting the motion to dismiss the original bill does not necessarily carry the cross-bill with it. See Dan. Ch. Prac. & Plead. (5th ed.) 1553 note 3 and cases cited.

Since the defendants resist the motion, for the reason that they •are entitled to relief, as they claim, and since the charges in their cross-bill are important and may possibly be the grounds of relief, I will advise that the cross-bill and answer thereto be retained, with leave to either party to come in to ask for further relief, as the circumstances may require.

But I will advise that the original bill be dismissed, upon the payment of all the costs heretofore incurred by defendants.

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

Related

Intiso v. Intiso
35 A.2d 615 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 N.J. Eq. 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-amey-njch-1885.