Rowe v. Matteson
This text of 7 N.J. Eq. 131 (Rowe v. Matteson) 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
On a bill of interpleader there should, regularly, be a decree that the defendants interplead, and the case then becomes a case between the defendants, as between a complainant and defendant. But as the proofs have been taken on both sides as between the befendants, and the causéis brought to hearing and is ready for a decision, both as between the defendants and as between them and the complainants, it may now bo heard and a final decree made.
On the merits of the caso I think it was a proper case for a bill of interpleader and for the injunction which was granted. In equity there may be such an agreement by parol as will pass the right to a chose in action. As between the defendants I have only to remark, that the proof of such agreement should be clear, and that I think the proof in this case insufficient.
Decree for the executors.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 N.J. Eq. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-matteson-njch-1848.