Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 N.J. Eq. 174

Miller v. Rushforth

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided January 15, 1842

New Jersey Court of Chancery · decided 1842-01-15

The case was this. The defendant, Rushforth, on the third of April, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, had given to the complainant a mortgage for three thousand dollars, on which the complainant advanced two thousand and four hundred dollars, and for the residue, agreed in writing to pay off a prior mortgage on the same premises, given by the person of whom Rushforth purchased, to Stephen Terhune, one of the defendants, on which there remained due six hundred dollars.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1842-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1944

6 state decisions

2018421850186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor

¶1directed the decree to be opened and the matter to be referred to a master, to ascertain the amount due upon the complainant’s mortgage, without instructions.

¶2The following order was thereupon made.

¶3“ This matter coming on to be heard, at the state house, in the city of Trenton, before the chancellor, in the presence of A. O. Zabriskie, of counsel with William Rushforth, the petitioner, and J. D. Miller, of counsel with the complainant, and the depositions being read, and the arguments of the respective counsel being heard and considered : it is, on this twentieth day of January, eighteen hundred and forty-two, ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the chancellor, that the decree heretofore made in this cause, bearing date the fifteenth day of February, eighteen *177hundred and thirty-nine, be opened for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of credits to which the defendant, William Rush-forth, is entitled, by virtue of receipts not heretofore allowed, and also by virtue of the mortgage assumed to be paid by the said complainant, and in the said petition as well as in the complainant’s bill of complaint referred to; and that the same be referred to Lewis D. Hardenburgh, esquire, one of the masters of this court, to ascertain the same, and report thereon to this court, with all convenient speed. And it is further ordered, that the execution issued on the said decree, be set aside, and all proceedings on the same be stayed until the further order of this court.”

/4/njeq/174 · .json · Public domain