§

In re Rinehart

70 N.J. Super. 429 (App. Div. 1961)
In re Rinehart

2 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc.

    132 N.J. 109 (N.J. 1993)   Cited 86 times
    Holding statute of limitations defense waived although pleaded but not thereafter asserted until post-trial motion

    (rejecting waiver argument and holding that standing master had properly raised statute of limitations notwithstanding defaulting defendant's failure to plead it when bar "appear[ed] on the face of the complaint" in ex parte proceeding), aff'd, 66 N.J. 6, 326 A.2d 688 (1974); Rappeport, supra, 90 N.J. Super. at 580-81, 218 A.2d 873 (allowing defendant to raise defense in motion for judgment on the pleadings; defense not waived by failure to include it in the Answer or to raise it by motion before filing an Answer when defense appears on face of Complaint); Feil v. Senisi, 7 N.J. Super. 517, 518-19, 72 A.2d 348 (Law Div. 1950) (allowing defendant to raise statute-of-limitations defense in motion to dismiss where it affirmatively appears on face of Complaint); cf. In reRinehart, 70 N.J. Super. 429, 434, 175 A.2d 669 (App.Div. 196 1) (considering substantive argument not raised before judgment in Chancery Division when party had presented argument to court on motion to amend). No unforeseen or insurmountable developments intruded in this litigation to inhibit in any way Bell's pursuit of its limitations defense.

  2. Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Berenblum

    91 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div. 1966)   Cited 7 times
    Construing statute that provided that share of predeceased residuary devisee "`shall go to and be vested in the remaining devisee or legatee'" and holding that statute should be read in pari materia with state's antilapse statute, so that descendants of two deceased residuary devisees would take that which was devised to their deceased ancestors, as well as their ancestors' share of devise to third person who predeceased testator but left no issue

    The short answer to this argument is that appellants consented to the trial of the issue and this argument was not raised in the court below. In re Rinehart, 70 N.J. Super. 429, 434 ( App. Div. 1961); R.R. 1:7-1(c). Moreover, we think it is well settled that where in the course of the settlement of a decedent's estate a controversy arises concerning an alleged gift inter vivos, the Chancery Division has jurisdiction to pass upon the subject matter.