Graves v. Fancher

88 A. 172, 81 N.J. Eq. 517, 11 Buchanan 517, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 343
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 18, 1913·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the vice-chancellor’s construction of the deed from Rutherford to Thomas Iron Company of April 22d, 1871. This makes it’ unnecessary to consider whether the complainant has shown an unbroken paper title. Hpon a bill to quiet title, when the jurisdictional facts are shown, as we think they are in this case, it is for the defendant to establish his claim (Ocean View Land Co. v. Loudenslager, 78 N. J. Eq. (8 Buch.) 571), and this has not been done.

The decree must be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — -The Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayzb, Trenohard, Parker, Voorhees, Minturn, Kalisoh, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, White, Hepeenheimer, Terhune —14.

For reversal — Hone.

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

Graves v. Fancher, 88 A. 172, 81 N.J. Eq. 517, 11 Buchanan 517, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 343 (N.J. 1913).

88 A. 172 (Graves v. Fancher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

GARDEN OF MEM. v. Forest Lawn Mem. Pk. Assn.
264 A.2d 82 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Harloff
30 A.2d 57 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1943)