Opinion
07-28-1890
FISK v. GROSVENOR et al.
Franklin M. Olds, for complainant. W. D. Lanning, for defendants.
On motion to refer.
Franklin M. Olds, for complainant. W. D. Lanning, for defendants.
BIRD, V. C. The complainant files her bill for partition of lands held in common by her with the defendants. She alleges that she is advised and believes that no just and equitable partition can be made. The defendants allege by their answer that a partition can be made according to law, and insist upon its being done. The bill and answer having been filed containing these allegations, the complainant now asks to have the case referred to a master, under the twenty-ninth rule of the court. This is because of the impression upon the mind of counsel that there is no material dispute between the parties; or, at most, only such as can be heard and disposed of by a master under the practice of the court. This motion is resisted by the defendants, who claim that under the well-settled practice, such material issue having been raised by the pleadings, they are entitled to have the cause regularly set down for final hearing upon pleadings and proofs. In this the defendants are fully sustained by the principles announced in the case of Waln v. Meirs, 27 N. J. Eq. 77.
The motion to refer will be denied, with costs.