New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1848

Rowe v. Matteson

Rowe v. Matteson
New Jersey Court of Chancery · Decided June 15, 1848 · Ciiancellok
7 N.J. Eq. 131

Counsel

R. S. Field and W. Hoisted for Kitty Weart., S. R. Hamilton and P. D. Vroom for the administrators &c. of Betsey Hoagland.

Rowe v. Matteson

Opinion of the Court

The Ciiancellok.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.