Case law

Solimine v. Hollander

128 N.J. Eq. 228 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 8, 1940

The entire authorized capital (excepting one qualifying share to the company's Canadian counsel) was issued to the four Hollanders. … It has been suggested that he must necessarily have owned a qualifying share but if this ever was the fact it was an ownership without a beneficial interest.

Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Ritz Holding Co.

126 N.J. Eq. 148 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Sep 9, 1939

Rep. 478 , Vice-Chancellor Egan said (at p. 67 ): "There does not appear to be any fixed rule by which `fair values' shall be determined or established. … That he was as well, if not better, qualified as an appraisal expert than any of the other witnesses clearly appears from the record, and I rely strongly upon his testimony, because he faced realities and dealt with facts

International Silver Co. v. William H. Rogers Corp.

66 N.J. Eq. 119 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 9, 1904

If he could succeed in proving this, I think he would, on well-established principles, be entitled to an injunction.” … S. 537 , where Chief-Justice Fuller said: “The deceitful representation or perfidious dealing must be made out or be clearly inferable from the circumstances.”

Gevas v. Greek Restaurant Workers' Club

99 N.J. Eq. 770 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 11, 1926

The bill alleges that no strike exists in complainant's restaurant; that there has not been any strike in that establishment; that no employes had been discharged or left complainant's employ during the month preceding the … It clearly appears, also, that there is no strike of the employes of complainant's restaurant.

Hendrickson v. Shotwell

1 N.J. Eq. 577 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 15, 1832

There is also a monthly meeting of Friends established at the same place. … This preparative meeting at Chesterfield, was established at an early period.

Audenried v. East Coast Milling Co.

68 N.J. Eq. 450 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 7, 1904

The principle established in Miller v. White has never been repudiated by the courts of New York. … The law, as established in New York, has, however, been approved by the supreme court of the United States.

Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. Helme

121 N.J. Eq. 406 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 19, 1937

Clearly, Joseph S. … That rule is recognized and established here." It is evident that George A. Helme (II), determined that if the remainder over to the children of George W.

Matthews v. Hoagland

48 N.J. Eq. 455 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1891

latter case, had said (at p. 41): “How, if the plaintiff consulted counsel beforehand as to the means, the expediency, or consequences of committing such a fraud, his communications may, perhaps, be privileged; and they are clearly … To this extent the act of 1880 modified the-earlier law, the alteration being to partially qualify each party without reference to the action of the other.

Tooker v. Tooker

71 N.J. Eq. 513 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 4, 1906

I will now notice the line of cases which are relied upon to establish a contrary result. What seems to be considered as a leading case is Attorney-General v. … The present case is clearly distinguishable from that line of cases which follow Downey v. Borden, 36 N. J. Law (7 Vr.) 460, and are commented upon and followed in Tuerk v. Schueler, 71 N. J.

Stockton ex rel. Miller v. American Tobacco Co.

55 N.J. Eq. 352 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1897

answer by complainant, a stranger, the question of agency was necessarily determined by the court, the court, however, refusing to examine the legality of the election of the officers who had filed the answer, they being clearly … Central Railroad Co., supra, the doctrine in regard to the immunity of corporations from attack in a court of equity was limited to suits between private parties, and so contained an implication that, as to suits by the attorney-general

Whitfield v. Kern

120 N.J. Eq. 115 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 25, 1936

Where such liability is established, there is no reason why it should not be enforced. … Such an argument, however, it would seem would be clearly unsound.

American Central Insurance v. Landau

62 N.J. Eq. 73 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 1, 1901

Winchester replied that Landau must not expect any expression from him with regard to his loss, and that no man was fit for an appraiser who did so previous to having qualified as such. … They proceeded to Landau’s mill, saw Landau, informed him that they had been qualified to act (sworn in) and were ready to give him a hearing.

Hattersley v. Bissett

50 N.J. Eq. 577 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1892

A valid gift in terms absolute, is qualified by reference to a distinct clause, which, though inoperative as a conveyance, affords authentic evidence of intention. … When the mind or intention of a testator or grantor is so clearly established by competent evidence, it would be highly inequitable for the court to interfere.

Kellers v. Kellers

79 N.J. Eq. 412 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 6, 1911

thought: he says this will first gave the absolute fee-simple to Eliza; but he does not stop there because of the canon of construction that requires consideration of the whole will; and he then finds that the testatrix qualified … Those cases clearly show that the court of errors and appeals has determined that where there is a devise in fee, with a limitation over in the event that the first taker does not dispose of the same by will, the effect is

Williams v. Odessa & Middletown Railway Co.

7 Del. Ch. 303 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Sep 15, 1895

That the said freeholders so appointed duly and properly qualified themselves, elected said Henry A. … This distinction must be clearly and distinctly understood or confusion and sophistry will follow.

Bookman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

138 N.J. Eq. 312 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 31, 1946

It was not established that the company ever purchased any stock from a director. Mr. … Rep. 454 , did not establish that in New Jersey a stockholder may institute a derivative suit with respect to transactions completed before he became a stockholder, and that this rule had not been established by Elkins v.

Williams v. McKay

46 N.J. Eq. 25 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1889

The loan was clearly not within the restriction of the charter. … It is clearly established that there were no such investments of the bank’s funds, and that the entries- *71 were made by the secretary, Hallanan, with the knowledge of the defendant Halliard, to conceal the fact that moneys

Hollander v. Abrams

99 N.J. Eq. 254 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 4, 1926

There was no necessity for the husband's concurrence in the agreement in question, because section 8-p of the Married Women's act qualifies and enables a married woman, circumstanced as was the defendant at the time of the … In the case sub judice , the stipulation of facts brings the defendant clearly within the provisions of this act.

Bankers Trust Co. v. Maxson

100 N.J. Eq. 1 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 26, 1926

The others did not qualify. … She is clearly estopped. See, also, Stokes v. Newark Meadows Imp. Co., 90 N.J. Eq. 185 , 195 .

St. John the Baptist, C., Church v. Gengor

118 N.J. Eq. 467 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 26, 1935

To establish a corporation de facto , three things are necessary. 1. A valid law under which such a corporation might be incorporated. 2. A bona fide attempt to organize under such law; and 3. … The purpose of the proposed incorporation is thereby clearly shown to be entirely different from that represented to the parishioners by Father Papp. Mr.