Margate Co. v. Penrose

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Margate Co. v. Penrose

89 A. 749, 82 N.J. Eq. 370, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 366

DecidedJune 27, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A. 749 (Margate Co. v. Penrose) 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

Margate Co. v. Penrose, 89 A. 749, 82 N.J. Eq. 370, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 366 (N.J. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a bill for partition of lands. The title of the complainant to an undivided three-eighths is not disputed. The title of the appellant is questioned by some of her co-defendants. She applied for an order staying proceedings until the title, could be determined at law. The vice-chancellor refused the stay and she appealed. We think it unnecessary to consider the effect of the act of 1912. P. L. 10 IS p. 82k. The complainant has a right to proceed with her suit for partition and cannot be deprived of that right by a controversy between the defendants. Phelps v. Green, 3 John. Ch. 302: Egner v. Meis, 36 Atl. Rep. 943.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chiue-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trencitard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vreden-BURGI-r, CONGDON, WHITE, HEPPENIIEIMER-12. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a bill for partition of lands. The title of the complainant to an undivided three-eighths is not disputed. The title of the appellant is questioned by some of her co-defendants. She applied for an order staying proceedings until the title, could be determined at law. The vice-chancellor refused the stay and she appealed. We think it unnecessary to consider the effect of the act of 1912. P. L. 10 IS p. 82k. The complainant has a right to proceed with her suit for partition and cannot be deprived of that right by a controversy between the defendants. Phelps v. Green, 3 John. Ch. 302: Egner v. Meis, 36 Atl. Rep. 943.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chiue-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trencitard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vreden-BURGI-r, CONGDON, WHITE, HEPPENIIEIMER-12. For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A. 749, 82 N.J. Eq. 370, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margate-co-v-penrose-nj-1913.