Case law

Osco Motors Corp. v. Martin

137 N.J. Eq. 433 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 14, 1946

The wording of his bill of sale to that corporation seems to me to clearly negative any thought that he was passing on to it a right to challenge the chattel mortgages of the defendant bank. … For the reasons I have given, I conclude that complainant does not have the status of a subsequent purchaser in good faith to qualify it to successfully attack the chattel mortgages of the defendant.

In re Thompson

85 N.J. Eq. 221 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 5, 1915

Pease, to depart from the doctrine theretofore clearly established in that tribunal, namely, that, on habeas corpus, testimony would not be weighed as to the presence in, or absence from, a demanding state,, of an alleged … Corp. (2d ed.) § 25a, it is laid down: “It was not to bestow an immunity from arbitrary imprisonment, which is abundantly provided for in Magna Charta—if, indeed, it were not much more ancient—that the statute of Charles

Leslie v. Leslie

50 N.J. Eq. 103 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1892

In such cases sound policy, as well as the safety of the parties, demands that it shall be presumed that what is not clearly granted was intended to be withheld. … final, and, therefore, invalid, remarking that the arbitrators, instead of determining the points in dispute between the parties, had left one sum in dispute to be decided by the person, who, of all others, was the least qualified

Appleby v. Appleby

139 N.J. Eq. 73 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 26, 1946

Justice Heher, speaking for the Supreme Court (at p. 340 ), said: "* * * it is an established doctrine in this state that, except as modified by statute, a trust estate is not liable to seizure and sale on execution at law … Upon the probate of the will the named executors and trustees qualified and thereafter functioned as such until January 21st, 1936, when by the final decree in this cause they were "relieved and discharged from all further

Board of Health v. Inhabitants of Phillipsburg

83 N.J. Eq. 402 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 28, 1914

I think it clearly was. * * * That was the general object of the act, and that alone was necessary to be expressed in the title. … object clearly implied.

Stockton v. Central Railroad

50 N.J. Eq. 52 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1892

That very enumeration may serve to more clearly express the general object. For instance, in Easton and Amboy R. R. Co. v. Central R. R. … It is demonstrated as-clearly as words could state it, that the object of the transaction was to place the Central railroad within the Philadelphia and Reading railroad system.

State Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n v. O'Callaghan

67 N.J. Eq. 103 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 1, 1904

The opinion further holds that the owner of the equity may, with like immunity from prejudicial injury to his rights, neglect to take advantage of the time-honored rule of practice of this court which requires the execution … The well-established rule, I' think, is that persons having such objections to a sale must give public notice at the sale.

Barrett v. Bloomfield Savings Institution

64 N.J. Eq. 425 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 25, 1903

And yet the law indisputably establishes an equitable right in his favor from the naked fact of his relationship' with this class of officers. … banks already organized; and that section declares that *450 “all vacancies in such board, by death, resignation or otherwise, shall be filled by the board of managers, on approval by the state board, with persons duly qualified

Supp v. Second National Bank Trust Co.

98 N.J. Eq. 242 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 10, 1925

The testator is presumed to have framed his bequest in view of the general rules of construction established by the courts, and any intention at variance therewith, to be recognized, must be clearly indicated, and is not … after this date," any grandchild born at any time, either before or after the death of the testator, and subsequent to the date of the will, would be included; but the testator has added the words "and survive me," thereby qualifying

Black v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co.

22 N.J. Eq. 130 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1871

But this is qualified by two provisos. … Whatever is not clearly and expressly granted, is withhold. This rule is no less clearly and firmly established, and acted upon, in the state of Pennsylvania.

Perfection Garment Co. v. Crosby Stores, Inc.

109 N.J. Eq. 450 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 14, 1932

The petitioners qualified, assumed the duties and burdens of their trust, took possession of the two places of business situate in this state which by appropriate order of this court they conducted as going business establishments … Such is clearly indicated in Loeser v. Dallas, 192 Fed. Rep. 909 (C.C.A., 3d Circuit — opinion by Judge Buffington). See, also, Cudahy Packing Co. v. New Jersey Dairy Products Co., 90 N.J. Eq. 541 .

Gilmore v. Tuttle

32 N.J. Eq. 611 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1880

One executor, the plaintiff, qualified in North Carolina, and the one in Mississippi qualified there. The estate was very large, consisting of lands in both the states named, and bonds &c. from debtors in both states. … As to the second ground: It appears clearly that, by the sales to Mrs. Amelia B. Gilmore, a large part of the tract of seventeen and thirty-four one-hundredths acres was almost entirely lost to the estate.

Girard Trust Co. v. Mueller

125 N.J. Eq. 597 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 13, 1939

Tuttle, trust investment officer of the complainant, a witness who, I think, was qualified to express his opinion as an expert, stated the situation very clearly in answer to a question as to whether the trusts created under … Rep. 692 , Vice-Chancellor Fielder held that "if the trusts are set up in securities, the securities must be valued as of the date the trusts are established."

W.D. Cashin Co. v. Alamac Hotel Co., Inc.

98 N.J. Eq. 432 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 25, 1925

Edward Maxson, Esq., was duly appointed and qualified as receiver of the defendant corporation in this cause, *Page 434 and on March 3d 1925, an order was made and entered herein granting leave to the Bankers Trust Company … An "equity" is not a chancellor's sense of moral right, or any vague or indefinite opinion as altruism, but is a right cognizable in a court of chancery, governed by established rule and fixed precedents.

Attorney-General v. Delaware & Bound Brook Railroad

27 N.J. Eq. 1 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1876

It was held that the jurisdiction conferred upon New York over the waters of the river and bay was a qualified and limited jurisdiction, for police and sanitary purposes, and to promote the interests of commerce in the use … As a condition to the exercise of that power, it is essential that the right shall be clearly established, or that it should previously have been determined by the action of the ordinary tribunals for the adjudication of

Bryan v. Bryan

61 N.J. Eq. 45 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 3, 1896

The ■testator, indeed, used the qualifying words, fwhal shall remain/ but he probably used them in view of the fact that some of the personal property was of a consumable character.” … The court said: “It is now established that a personal thing or money may be devised to one for life, and remainder over; and as to what has been insisted on, that the wife had a power over the capital or principal sum, that

Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Hertzberg

69 N.J. Eq. 264 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 4, 1905

The defendant submits until the final hearing to the injunction as it now stands qualified by this exception; the complainant insists that the exception should be expunged. … That the right of redemption represented by a stamp which has been issued in the regular way, and therefore has been collected in the regular way, is assignable is admitted by counsel for the complainant, and clearly appears

L. Martin Co. v. L. Martin & Wilckes Co.

75 N.J. Eq. 39 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 13, 1908

The remaining stock outstanding' consisted of two qualifying shares, and the sixty shares which the Messrs. Wilckes had transferred to Mr. Martin. … Martin” are a part, unless other words are made a part of such name which mil have the effect to clearly and unmistakably distinguish the two1 corporations and their respective businesses.

In Re Leupp

108 N.J. Eq. 49 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 9, 1931

That the settlers contemplated the likelihood of future additions being made to the original principal from the contingent estates therein specified seems to be clearly manifested by the foregoing excerpts from their own … This order, still being in full force and effect, is immune from impeachment or contradiction in this collateral proceeding, by any of the parties involved in said litigation, one of whom was exceptant’s cestui que trust.

Lehigh Structural Steel Co. v. Atlantic Smelting & Refining Works

92 N.J. Eq. 131 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 15, 1920

In the cases relied upon by the defence, the policy of the law towards the principle of the closed shop, announced by the foregoing authorities, is not in the last qualified. … That there must he mutuality of remedy in specific performance is an established rule of equity, but the rule lacks application.