Staats v. Van Sickel

19 A. 261, 52 N.J.L. 370, 23 Vroom 370, 1890 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 59
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 15, 1890·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pjer Cujriam.

Upon the admitted facts the wife acquired a legal interest in the lands conveyed to the husband; she, therefore, cannot stand purely as surety.

The case, we think, is ruled by the decision in the Court of Errors in Perkins v. Elliott, 8 C. E. Gr. 526.

The plaintiff must have judgment.

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

Staats v. Van Sickel, 19 A. 261, 52 N.J.L. 370, 23 Vroom 370, 1890 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 59 (N.J. 1890).

19 A. 261 (Staats v. Van Sickel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reeves v. Morgan
48 N.J. Eq. 415 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1891)