History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rowe v. Matteson
7 N.J. Eq. 131
New York Court of Chancery
1848
Check Treatment
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 Details

Case Name: Rowe v. Matteson
Court Name: New York Court of Chancery
Date Published: Jun 15, 1848
Citation: 7 N.J. Eq. 131
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.