Case law

Howell v. Ashmore

9 N.J. Eq. 82 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1852

The whole statement of the case by the bill shows, I think clearly, that the suit was commenced after the plaintiff's title accrued, but before he had his deed recorded. … The defendant must answer, either admitting, denying or qualifying all the circumstances upon which it is contended that if the defendant will speak, notice, though denied, will appear.”

Mullany v. Mullany

4 N.J. Eq. 16 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 15, 1837

But if the intention of the testator had been more clearly expressed to debar the defendant, Mullany, from his curtesy, another question arises, How far that intention shall prevail? … He says, “ The devisor seems to have had two intentions, which are inconsistent; one was to give an estate in fee to the feme covert, the- other to qualify it in such manner as that her husband should have no power over it

Miller v. Miller

1 N.J. Eq. 386 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1831

Mont *389 gomery, 2 Ves. jr. 195, the lord chancellor says, “I take it to be the established law, that no court, not even the ecclesiastical court, has any original jurisdiction to give a wife separate maintenance.” … By marriage with a woman, the husband is entitled to an absolute or qualified right to all her estate, real and personal; and the effects of the marriage are, that the husband and the wife are accounted one person, and he

In Re Henn

114 N.J. Eq. 452 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 14, 1933

Under article 1, section 8, paragraph 4 of the constitution of the United States, congress is given the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the … The receivers qualified and took possession of the corporate property in those states.

Sheen v. Sheen

126 N.J. Eq. 132 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 24, 1939

One doctor gets paid. 2 Bogert 1163 § 373 , says: "Trusts for the maintenance of existing health and the prevention of disease are clearly charitable, and are probably to be classed as eleemosynary. … be divided into six equal shares, each share to be devoted in each year as a prize for the best results achieved during each year in the six classes specified, and to be paid to such man or woman throughout the world who qualified

In Re Mechanics Trust Co.

119 N.J. Eq. 141 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 4, 1935

None of the participating certificate holders in the instant case have established a loss under the guarantee held by them; their claim is only contingent and uncertain. … It is only arbitrary restraint and impairment of contracts (article 1, section 10), not immunity from reasonable regulations to safeguard the public interests, that the federal constitution prohibits. Miller v.

Commercial Trust Co. v. L. Wertheim Coal & Coke Co.

88 N.J. Eq. 143 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 8, 1917

The receivers qualified, and on. September 17th took actual physical possession of the coal trestles, office buildings and other structures on the leased lands. … The plan relating to the issue of bonds is also clearly explained'. Fletcher v. Bonnet, 51 N. J. Eq. 615; Camden Safe Deposit Co. v. Burlington, &c., Co., 33 Atl. Rep. 479 ; Breit v. Salferino, 77 N. J.

Kline v. McGuckin

24 N.J. Eq. 411 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1874

The evidence produced by the oral examination of the witnesses at the hearing, established conclusively that the deed was not given or intended as an absolute conveyance, but only as a security, and the consequence of this … The latter may be used to deceive and keep creditors at bay quite as easily as the former, and they are more liable to occasion contention and litigation between the parties to them, than deeds whose conditions are clearly

Attorney-General ex rel. Easton v. New York & Long Branch Railroad

24 N.J. Eq. 49 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1873

They are to build the one or establish the other, as may be most convenient. Who is to determine for them, which will be the most convenient? … They receive no license or immunity by the refusal of this court to interfere with them on this application. The motion for an interlocutory injunction is denied, and the bill dismissed, with costs.

McPherson Hotel Co. v. Smith

127 N.J. Eq. 167 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 5, 1940

It is doubtless true that it is to be construed as though it contained the clause “between employer and employe,” qualifying the word “dispute;” (and as though it contained the clause “except in aid or furtherance of an unlawful … Clearly, therefore, the appellate opinion must be deemed a holding *177 that where the business of complainant is operating at considerably less than normal extent, and strike activities are continuing, the strike cannot

O'Brien v. Paterson Brewing & Malting Co.

69 N.J. Eq. 117 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 10, 1905

The establishment was not successful. … The present case, in its facts, is clearly distinguishable from Chetwood v. Brittan.

Pattberg v. Gott

102 N.J. Eq. 371 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 29, 1928

Said instrument was admitted to probate February 2d 1923, and the executor and trustee therein named qualified thereunder. … It is clearly apparent from the proofs that if the testator's will were invalidated complainant's sister would materially benefit thereby.

Archer v. American Water Works Co.

50 N.J. Eq. 33 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1892

Venner & Co., and they were nominally qualified as such directors by transfers to them respectively of shares of the stock subscribed for by the corporators and paid for by Venner & Co. … Some of the special prayers of the bill approach the proper relief, but fall short of stating it clearly. I understand that the bill was not drawn by counsel who represented the complainant at the argument.

Levine v. Lafayette Building Corp.

103 N.J. Eq. 121 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 20, 1928

It is clearly established in the case sub judice that the defendant accepted a benefit, to wit, an additional payment of $4,000 under the "Agreement of Sale" aforesaid, a considerable time after the execution and delivery … Levine, but, on cross-examination, he qualified the effect of his denial by saying he had no recollection of such offer.

Rankin v. Brown

142 N.J. Eq. 180 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 15, 1948

complainants here could possess derive from the original restrictive covenants cited, and the opportunity to know the terms of such covenants and the limitations and *Page 187 reservations, not merely implied but actually clearly … It must be inferred that the purchasers of the 27 lots were aware of the qualifying reservation included in the covenant.

Moses v. Moses

138 N.J. Eq. 287 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 9, 1946

Moses, qualifying her to assume payment of her husband's note then reduced to $12,000, and freeing him to borrow additional moneys. … Thus, she has satisfactorily established ownership to $400.

Central Railroad v. Pennsylvania Railroad

31 N.J. Eq. 475 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1879

But the fact that its property is under the charge of this court does not in anywise secure to the company protection against lawful competition in its business, or secure for its property immunity against liability to lawful … The legislature clearly did not intend to confine the advantage of the law to those who were citizens of or dwellers in this state. The language of the law is, “ any number of persons, not less than seven, &c.”

Swetland v. Swetland

100 N.J. Eq. 196 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 16, 1926

and qualified successors. 25. … That case clearly held that a gift to an executor is a complete testamentary disposition.

Walker v. Pennsylvania-Reading S.S. Lines

142 N.J. Eq. 588 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Sep 1, 1948

There was no precedent for establishing the seniority rights of the employees of the parent companies in the new company. … The numerous appeals within the Brotherhood by Lodge No. 72 clearly show this.

Steelman v. Wheaton

72 N.J. Eq. 626 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 23, 1907

The complainant alleges that no part of the $1,200 was payable to the defendant until the executor had qualified and invested an amount sufficient to produce it, and that as the delay in making the investment was caused by … It seeans to me that the question is clearly presented in the bill of complaint, for an inspection of it shows that the right to relief rests upon the interpretation of the material and only real eleanent of dispute, which