Case ID: scdc-ns_2/html/0118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAILEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, v. JOHN R. HARDIN, Trustee, Newark, N. J.; EDWARD E. RHODES, Trustee, Newark, N. J.; ROMAINE M. WALKER, and ERNEST G. WALKER.
    Equity No. 59052
    Peelle, Lesh, Drain & Barnard for plaintiff,
    Howe P. Cochran for defendant Romaine M. Walker.
   MEMORANDUM

BAILEY, J.

The proceedings for the appointment of trustees in this ease were summary in character under the provisions of the statute and the provisions of the statute must be strictly followed. The rule laid upon the defendants, while original process, is not a subpoena, and is in form more like a summons at law. The return day under the rule is the tenth day after service, under a subpoena the defendant has twenty days within which to answer.

I do not think therefore that the provisions of Equity Rule 23, Section 4, apply to the service of a rule issued under the provisions of Section 534 et seq. of the Code, and the motion to vacate the decree appointing trustees will be sustained.