Opinion
Submitted October term, 1934.
Decided January 10th, 1935.
The court of chancery has jurisdiction to entertain a bill for the removal of cloud on title, and the order denying motion to strike such a bill was proper, if the allegations of the complaint are true.
On appeal from the court of chancery.
Mr. Peter Hofstra, for the complainant-respondent.
Messrs. Beam Kelley ( Mr. Harold A. Price, of counsel), for the defendant-appellant.
This is an appeal from an order made in the court of chancery denying motion to strike out the bill of complaint. If the allegations of the complaint be true, the court below has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and award the relief prayed for, namely, the removal of cloud on the title of complainant's land.
The order is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.