Seigle v. Seigle

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Seigle v. Seigle

36 N.J. Eq. 397

DecidedFebruary 15, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.J. Eq. 397 (Seigle v. Seigle) 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

Seigle v. Seigle, 36 N.J. Eq. 397 (N.J. Ct. App. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The master’s report is in favor of the complainant on the subject of the Abraham Seigle’s liability for the rent of the farm, while occupied by his sons, William R. and John Seigle, and it has been confirmed. Abraham Seigle asks that the order of confirmation be set aside, to the end that he may be allowed to except to it on this point; and the complainant on the other hand, asks that, if the motion be granted, the report be returned to the master, with leave to him to take further testimony on the subject. The order of confirmation will be set aside on those terms.

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

The Chancellor.

The master’s report is in favor of the complainant on the subject of the Abraham Seigle’s liability for the rent of the farm, while occupied by his sons, William R. and John Seigle, and it has been confirmed. Abraham Seigle asks that the order of confirmation be set aside, to the end that he may be allowed to except to it on this point; and the complainant on the other hand, asks that, if the motion be granted, the report be returned to the master, with leave to him to take further testimony on the subject. The order of confirmation will be set aside on those terms.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.J. Eq. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seigle-v-seigle-njch-1883.