Case ID: nj-misc_2/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Inoeesoll, V. C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Karl Schaffer, complainant, v. Warren W. Hurd et al., defendants.
    [Determined June 18th, 1924.]
    Mortgages — Foreclosure—Vacation of Order for Purpose of Protecting Right of Petitioner — Question of Procedure by Petition or Bill of Review.
    On petition to ojien decree.
    
      Mr. Albert G. Abbott and Messrs. Gola & Cola, for the petitioner (defendant).
    
      Contra, Messrs. Thompson & Hanslein and Mr. Merritt Lane, for the complainant.
   Inoeesoll, V. C.

The original bill in this cause was for the foreclosure of a tax title to a large number of tracts of land in Atlantic City, and resulted in the entry of a final decree on July 6th,-1922.

On September 25th, 1923, the defendant Warren W. Hurd filed his petition praying that the “decree'heretofore entered * * * be vacated or opened, to the end that the right of redemption of petitioner be preserved and his interest protected.”

Objection is made that this result cannot be obtained by a petition, but that the petitioner must proceed, if at all, by a bill of review.

Vice-Chancellor Learning, in Boyer v. Boyer, 77 N. J. Eq. 144, states the law -to be:

“After the period for appeal has expired, or after an appeal has been taken and the decree affirmed, the court of chancery cannot entertain a petition to open the decree. Such decree can be challenged only by bill of review.”

I cannot find that this statement • has been criticised nr modified, and it must be accepted as existing law.

The testimony presented would indicate grave doubt of the-giving of proper notices, but without expressing an opinion as to the merits, I will advise an order dismissing the order to show cause, unless within ten days further motions be made.