Margate Co. v. Penrose

Supreme Court of New Jersey June 27, 1913

Margate Co. v. Penrose, 82 N.J. Eq. 370 (N.J. 1913)

89 A. 749; 1913 N.J. LEXIS 366

Affirmance, Bogert, Burgi, Chiue, Congdon, Garrison, Heppeniieimer, Kalisch, Minturn, None, Parker, Reversal, Swayze, Trencitard, Vreden, White

Opinion of the Court

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.

Reference

Full Case Name: Margate Company v. Charles B. Penrose
Status: Published