Case law

Stetson v. Kinch

92 N.J. Eq. 362 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 28, 1921

Brown, Lucinda Squires, children of my. sister, Susan Darling, deceased, and to Joseph Darling, Francis Arnold and John Darling, their heirs and assigns, to be divided equally between them, share and share alike.” … Collins v. Bergen, 42 N. J. Eq. 57, rules the point.

Douma v. Powers

92 N.J. Eq. 25 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 2, 1920

Stevenson, V. C. … Browne on Fraud. (5th ed.) § 505. In Whitehead v. Burgess (1887), 61 N. J. Law 75, 76, Mr.

Gerber v. Gulick

137 N.J. Eq. 403 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 5, 1946

Brown's to Phillip Johnson's, adjoining the Johnson trolley line, to my son, Jacob Franklin Gulick. … Johnson v. Talman, 99 N.J. Eq. 762 ; 134 Atl. Rep. 357 .

Hartshorne v. Thomas

43 N.J. Eq. 419 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1887

Bird, V. C. … The “ Mercury ” also sailed for the same destination with £380-000 of British treasure on board. Its destination was, also, New York.

Guild v. Baker

68 N.J. Eq. 61 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 1, 1904

It was so distinctly held in the ease of Boney v. Williams, 55 N. J. Eq. (10 Dick.) 691, by Vice-Chancellor Grey, and, again, by the same judge, in Reed v. Helois Carbide Specialty Co., 64. N. J. Eq. (19 Dick.) 231. … The same principle was, in substance, held in Black v. Hobart Trust Co., 64. N. J.

Waterworks Equipment Co. v. McGovern

96 N.J. Eq. 520 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 9, 1924

of commissioners, or the board of commissioners." … In Boyle v.

Ryno v. Darby

20 N.J. Eq. 231 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1869

This was so decided upon consideration by the Supreme Court of this state, in the case of Reeves v. … Wallace v. Brown, 2 Stockt. 308.

In Re Tatnall

102 N.J. Eq. 445 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 5, 1928

The cases in this state supporting that view are the following: Crane v. Peer, supra; Brown v. Norcross, 59 N.J. Eq. 427 ; Avon-by-the-Sea Land Improvement Co. v. Thompson, supra; Myers v. Steel Machine Co., 67 N.J. … Eq. 300 ; Resnick v. Campbell, 68 N.J. Eq. 348 ; American Ice Co. v. Lynch, 74 N.J. Eq. 298 ; Porter v. Williams, 93 N.J. Eq. 88 ; affirmed, Ibid. 505; Rittenhouse v. Swiecicki, 94 N.J. Eq. 36 ; Coltinuk v.

Berla v. M. L. Holding Co.

105 N.J. Eq. 592 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 10, 1930

In Brown v. Hendrickson, 39 N.J. Law 239 , the Supreme Court offset judgments. In Blackburn v. Reilly, 48 N.J. … In Conant v. Pettit, 92 N.J.

Young Men's Christian Asso. v. Appleby

97 N.J. Eq. 95 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 5, 1924

Johnson v. Brown, 85 N.J. Eq. 76 . … Mills v. Davison, 54 N.J. Eq. 659 ; MacKenzie v. Trustees, c., supra. The gift and devise being solely for charitable uses, the rule against perpetuities does not apply. Mills v. Davi son, supra; MacKenzie v.

Broome v. New York & New Jersey Telephone Co.

42 N.J. Eq. 141 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1886

Whitecar v. Michenor, 10 Stew. Eq. 6. This is such a case. … In Goodson v. Richardson, L.

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Oxford Iron Co.

38 N.J. Eq. 340 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1884

In Young v. Vough, 9 C. E. … Bullard v. Bank, 18 Wall. 589 . In that case the controversy was between an assignee in bankruptcy and the bank.

Irvington v. Ollemar

128 N.J. Eq. 402 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 1, 1940

Dey v. Jersey City, 19 N.J. Eq. 412 . All through our numerous cases dealing with municipal action, it will be seen that a board or body can act only by ordinance or resolution; these are the alternative methods. … ratified and confirmed by the Board," the board took the action required of it by the statute.

Lignot v. Jaekle

72 N.J. Eq. 233 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 18, 1906

This is the meaning given to the phrase in Kitching v. Brown, 180 N. Y. 414 . … Kitching v. Brown, supra. The building in question does not come within the latter pan of the above definition, because each suite in it is to have separate facilities for cooking.

Myers v. Abbott

98 N.J. Eq. 574 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 5, 1925

New Jersey Title Guaranty and Trust Co. v. Archibald, 91 N.J. Eq. 82 . … Abbott for board, lodging and services rendered to Miss Roy, and to ascertain what amount should be allowed her a reference to a master will be advised.

Yawger's v. Yawger

37 N.J. Eq. 216 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1883

Earl of Radnor, 3 M.& R. 254; 2 Wms. on Exrs. 1242; Vernon v. Vernon, 53 N. Y. 351 ; Van Duyne v. Van Duyne, 1 McCart. 49; Stevenson v. Brown, 3 Gr. Ch. 503. … It is urged that, as the law is declared in Rowe’s Exrs. v. White, 1 C. E. Gr. 411, and in Jones’s Exrs. v. Stites, 4 C. E.

Iback v. Elevator Supplies Co., Inc.

118 N.J. Eq. 90 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 13, 1935

The management of corporate affairs is committed by statute to the board of directors. … A corporation which has a surplus may, by authority of its board of directors, if its charter so permits, invest a part of the surplus in its own capital stock.

Charles R. Hedden Co. v. Dozier

99 N.J. Eq. 543 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 30, 1926

Toothe v. Dozier, 96 N.J. Eq. 46 ; reversed, Ibid. 601. Upon the dismissal of that suit, as improperly brought by a stockholder, this bill was filed by the company. … Stat. p. 1617; Siegman v. Electric Vehicle Co., 72 N.J. Eq. 403 . Of course, Hedden's alleged promise of January 5th could not bind Toothe or the company.

Smith v. Bayright

34 N.J. Eq. 424 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1881

See Lewis v. Lewis, 7 Ired. 72 ; Haggard v. Benson, 3 Tenn. Ch. 268; Robertson v. Stevens, 1 Ired. Eq. 247 ; Ashby v. Palmer, 1 Meriv. 286; Seely V. Jago, 1 P. Wms. 389 ; Turner v. Street, 2 Rand. 404 ; Pratt v. … Shields, 57 Miss. 31fl; MeElwain’s Case, 29 III. 41ft; Brown v. Brown, L. R. (2 Eq.) 4ftl. Proceedings in partilion where one tenant in common is a lunatic, Moore-head v. Moorehead, L. R. (2 Irish Eq.) 492; Hafhide v.

Norton v. Nathanson

85 N.J. Eq. 409 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 11, 1916

R. 5); and in this respect I think it is clearly distinguishable from Browne v. O’Dea, 1 Sch. & L. 115; Drew v. Power, Ibid. 182, and Molloy v. Irvin, Ibid. 310, and others of this class which are reviewed in Moore v. … This cannot be affirmed, because the defendant had changed his status from lienholder to owner (Cropper v. Brown, supra; Knickerbocker Tr. Co. v. Carteret Steel Co., 81 N. J.