Case law

Bednarik v. Bednarik

18 N.J. Misc. 633 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1940

The tests shall be made by duly qualified physicians, to be appointed by the court. … To subject a person against his will to a blood test is an assault and battery, and clearly an invasion of his personal privacy. It involves the sticking of a surgical needle into his body.

Brown v. Brown

112 N.J. Eq. 600 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 18, 1933

Where such residence or domicile is once established it is presumed to continue unless there be proof establishing the acquisition of a new domicile or residence; and to establish the latter more than a mere change of abode … It clearly appears therefore that the wife is not a bona fide non-resident entitled to immunity from the service of civil process or writs when in this state necessarily for attendance at court.

Henderson v. Champion

83 N.J. Eq. 554 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 30, 1914

The principle, that uniform restrictive covenants regarding improvements, as a part of a community scheme, are made for the benefit of all who, as lot owners, participate in the project, has been so firmly established by … inferred from the covenant, as has already been observed, was to keep all buildings and structures that distance away from the highway, and the restriction in that respect in nowise conflicts with nor is it modified or qualified

Industrial School District v. Whitehead

13 N.J. Eq. 290 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1861

, immunities, powers, and privileges in the city of Elizabeth and in the board of commissioners of schools of said city. … By the “act to establish public schools,” Nix.

Douglass v. Spear

97 N.J. Eq. 25 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 30, 1925

Defendant Equitable Estates Corporation was formed to take title to these properties, and upon the conveyances being made by complainant to that corporation on the date named its stock, except what is known as qualifying … Any suggestion that defendant corporation, as such, was the recipient of the legal title under the conveyances, and is immune from attack because it did not participate in their improper procurement, is untenable.

Gerhardt v. Sullivan

107 N.J. Eq. 374 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 23, 1930

Hanks, 136 U.S. 300 ), is qualified, as pointed out by Vice-Chancellor Berry, in Walker v. Burnett, supra. The point *Page 378 evidently was not submitted on the appeal. 101 N.J. Eq. 793 . … They do not affect rights safeguarded by the fundamental law and immune to legislative action.

Harris Thrown Silk Corp. v. Harris

95 N.J. Eq. 351 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 19, 1923

At the conclusion of the hearing I was inclined to the view that the defendants had not succeeded in establishing that the complainant corporation had knowledge in fact of the transaction referred to. … The facts indicate clearly that as soon as the Gosho Corporation became completely in control of the Harris Corporation by the transfer of the stock mentioned to it, and Harris’ contract with the Harris Corporation had been

East Ridgelawn Cemetery Co. v. Frank

77 N.J. Eq. 36 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 8, 1910

by the act nor consistent with the legislative scheme. * * * By implication, the language recognizes the right of the association to make use of the machinery of certificates of stock to manifest a debt owing by it; but clearly … and immunities.

Herman v. Herman

17 N.J. Misc. 127 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 8, 1939

It is petitioner’s admitted purpose.in pressing her present application to establish the arrearages as a debt against defendant, upon which she may take out process of execution. … To grant petitioner’s application would clearly violate this condition. Although defendant’s common law obligation to support petitioner still persists, it has remained unliquidated as to amount.

Merriman v. National Zinc Corp.

82 N.J. Eq. 493 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 28, 1914

At the date of the second Howard agreement an additional member of the board had qualified. … The evidence clearly establishes that more than two-thirds of the outstanding stock of the Sussex Calcite Company was voted in approval of these contracts, unless iti be found that one Baglej-, who was present at the stockholders

Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures v. Morris Canal & Banking Co.

1 N.J. Eq. 157 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1830

The charter granted to the Society for establishing useful Manufactures, was exceedingly liberal. … But whether the stream, in consequence of these operations, was sensibly diminished at the great falls, and whether in consequence of it any injury was sustained by the complainants, are matters not so clearly established

Jefferson Trust Co. v. the Hoboken Trust Co.

107 N.J. Eq. 310 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 6, 1930

The will was probated by the surrogate of Hudson county, and the executor therein named qualified thereunder. … It is clearly manifest to me from the proofs herein that no gift inter vivos was established by the deposit in question and no trust was thereby created entitling the defendant-administrator's intestate, the alleged beneficiary

De Gruchy v. Wilscot Land Co.

110 N.J. Eq. 80 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 19, 1932

But the defendant contends that the final decree entered in that proceeding, never having been reversed or modified, is final and conclusive upon all of the parties to it and, as such, is entirely immune from attack or impeachment … The charge as thus laid is conclusively established by the undisputed evidence, with the result that complainant is clearly entitled to the relief prayed for.

New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. State

184 N.J. Super. 348 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 4, 1982

In July 1978 their names appeared on a list of qualified persons willing to accept foster children on an emergency basis. … Finally, if the “relative nature of the work” test is utilized, then clearly what the Bells did was part of the regular “business” of the State. Id. at 604.

Federal Trust Co. v. Conklin

87 N.J. Eq. 185 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 5, 1916

. ■ The bill in this cause is filed to establish and enforce an equitable set-off, and, incidentally, to restrain defendant from prosecuting an action on an attachment in the supreme court of the State of New York. … Complainant further contends that it has a banker’s lien on Conti’s deposit, and that this action should be regarded as one to establish and foreclose this lien.

Moore Co. v. Federal Metal Bed Co.

110 N.J. Eq. 217 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1932

I am not aware of any warrant in law for the appointment of a receiver by a bankruptcy court in cases of either voluntary or involuntary bankruptcjr until after adjudication except in eases where it is clearly established … Crosby Stores, Inc., supra, is clearly manifest herein.

Hunter v. Hunter

64 N.J. Eq. 277 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 12, 1902

Sometimes she qualifies the expected answer to a leading question in a very suggestive way. This leading question was put, “And have you been keeping a boarding-house since you came here to reside?” … With practical immunity against prosecution for perjury, he testifies under the same constraining influence of his great interest, and under the same temptation to- deceive himself and the court under which the complainant

Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick

106 N.J. Eq. 391 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jun 19, 1930

If the complainant could not qualify them to testify in his behalf by putting them in as defendants, he can no more qualify them to testify against him. The language of Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet in McCartin v. … In that case the voluntary choice of the position of defendant was not permitted to qualify such defendants as witnesses to establish their rights in the property involved.

Clark Thread Co. v. William Clark Co.

55 N.J. Eq. 658 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1897

The answer of the judges was that (apart from the fact that the parties in the two proceedings were not the same) there was no estoppel because, in the ecclesiastical court, the sentence had only a qualified effect, viz., … afford no immunity to the principal for any act done by another agent.

Smith v. Smith

54 N.J. Eq. 1 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1895

the use contemplated is definitely ascertained and is purely a charitable one, and hence is not invalidated by any indefiniteness in the will as to the individual recipients of the bounty; that the class of recipients is clearly … It is apparent from this statement of the attitude of the parties, that the first question presented, is, whether the intention of the testator was to qualify the character of the school by a restrictive'scheme so that unless