In re Simpkins
This text of 149 A. 64 (In re Simpkins) 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.
Opinion
An affidavit of Prank W. Davis, of the firm of Eiggins & Davis, solicitors of the petitioner named in the petition in this cause, is presented, and application is made for the taxing of costs and expenses in said matter.
The proceedings resulted in finding the alleged lunatic to be of sound mind. The application for the taxing of costs must be denied, as the prosecutor cannot be allowed his costs and expenses, however meritorious his conduct may have been, in the absence of some fund in the control of the court out of which said costs and expenses can be directed to be paid. In re William E. Farrell, 51 N. J. Eq. 353.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
149 A. 64, 8 N.J. Misc. 109, 1930 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-simpkins-njch-1930.