Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Cokefair

Decision Date28 April 1886
Citation3 A. 686,41 N.J.E. 142
PartiesMUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF N. Y. v. COKEFAIR and others.
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

Bill to foreclose. On objections to answers to cross-bill, and motion to strike out counter cross-bill.

E. A. Day, for Lentilhon & Le Roy.

M. T. Rosenberg, for W. H. Tilton.

Craig Marsh, for the Cokefairs and the Slate Company.

RUNYON, Ch. The bill is filed to foreclose a mortgage dated December 12, 1870, given upon land in Plainfield by Susan M. Sanger and her husband to Lebbeus L. Manning, and by him assigned to the complainant. October 20, 1873, the Sangers conveyed the property to Diedrich Gerken, who, November 21, 1874, conveyed it to Henry Gerken, who on or about the same day conveyed it to Anna C. H. Gerken, wife of Diedrick Gerken. June 9, 1877, Diedrich Gerken and his wife conveyed the premises to Stephen H. Butler, who, November 29, 1879, conveyed them to Deborah Tilton. She, October 27, 1882, conveyed the property to Ella J. Cokefair, wife of Charles C. Cokefair. December 23, 1884, the Cokefairs gave a mortgage for $500 upon the property to William H. Tilton, and January 26, 1885, they gave another mortgage (for $5,000) upon the premises to the Old East Bangor Slate Company. May 16, 1885, the Cokefairs conveyed the property to the slate company. Deborah Tilton died December 14, 1882, intestate. Her heirs at law (among whom were David Tilton and William H. Tilton) were made parties to the bill, in view, it would seem, of some question which might arise as to the validity of the conveyance by her to Mrs. Cokefair. David Tilton's interest in the property, if the property descended from Deborah Tilton, is one-ninth. October 21, 1882, the defendants Joseph Lentilhon, J. Rutgers Le Roy, and Edward L. Lentilhon (partners under the firm of Lentilhon & Le Roy) recovered a judgment against David Tilton in the supreme court of this state for $5,176.05. In their answer to the bill of complaint they answered by way of cross-bill, attacking all the conveyances from the time when Mrs. Gerken owned the property, as fraudulent as against David Tilton's creditors, and designed to defeat, delay, and defraud those creditors. They insist that the property was conveyed to the grantees in those conveyances in secret trust for David Tilton, who (they allege) owned it. In like manner, and on the same ground of fraud, and secret trust for David Tilton, they impeach also the mortgages from the Cokefairs to William H. Tilton and the slate company. They also insist that the deed from Deborah Tilton to Mrs. Cokefair was not delivered in the life-time of the former. Their cross-bill is exhibited against the Cokefairs and the slate company and William H. Tilton, and the other persons besides William H. Tilton who are named in the original bill as heirs at law of Deborah Tilton. The Cokefairs, the slate company, and William H. Tilton have answered the cross-bill. On the other hand, William H. Tilton has exhibited in his answer a cross-bill against Lentilhon & Le Roy, impeaching their judgment as being void under the act "to prevent gaming." Lentilhon & Le Roy object to the answers to their cross-bill for insufficiency, and move to strike out the cross-bill against them.

The objections to the answer of the Cokefairs are—First, that the Cokefairs fail to answer, with sufficient fullness and particularity, and according to the best of their knowledge, information, remembrance, and belief, the premises set forth and alleged in the cross-bill. This objection is too general. It covers the whole answer, and it is surely not well taken as to some parts of the answer.

The second objection is to the answers to some of the interrogatories contained in the cross-bill, viz.: Who had possession of the property from the time when it was conveyed to Butler, to the death of Deborah Tilton; when and where and to whom the deed from Deborah Tilton to Mrs. Cokefair was delivered, and who was present at the delivery, and by whom the consideration for that deed was paid; when and where it was made, and who was present when it was made. The first of this group of objections is not well taken. The conveyance to Deborah Tilton was made November 29, 1879. She conveyed to Mrs. Cokefair October 27, 1882, and died December 14, 1882. The answer says that the answering defendants do not know who had possession before the conveyance to Deborah Tilton; that they are informed and believe that she had possession of the property, but that the premises were vacant when the Cokefairs began to negotiate for the purchase thereof, and when they bought them, but were in the control of the agent of Deborah Tilton, during all the time of the negotiation, up to the time of the purchase, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Peck v. Osteen
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 12 Mayo 1896
    ... ... to a whole answer is too general. Insurance Co. v ... Cokefair, 41 N. J. Eq. 142, 3 A. 686 ... [20 So. 551] ... The very purpose of ... ...
  • Stokes v. Farnsworth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • 12 Febrero 1900
    ...for impertinence must be allowed in whole, or not at all. ' Chapman v. School Dist., Deady, 108, Fed. Cas. No. 2,607; Insurance Co. v. Cokefair, 41 N.J.Eq. 142, 3 A. 686; Conway v. Wilson, 44 N.J.Eq. 457, 11 A. 734. follows that the plaintiffs' motion must be denied. ...
  • Blanton v. Chalmers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 6 Febrero 1908
    ... ... answer, part of which is clearly good. ' Mutual Life ... Ins. Co. v. Cokefair, 41 N.J.Eq. 142, 3 A. 686; ... Arnold v ... ...
  • Bergholz v. Ruckman
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • 28 Abril 1886

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT