156 A. 459 (N.J.Eq. 1931), Matawan Tile Company, A Corp. v. Second United Construction Company, A Corp.

Citation156 A. 459, 109 N.J.Eq. 78
Opinion JudgeBODINE, J.
Party NameMATAWAN TILE COMPANY, a corporation, complainant, v. SECOND UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a coproration, defendant. SECOND UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, and THOMAS D. MILLER, HYMAN KRAMER and MOE M. FAST, as trustees for creditors of the Second United Construction Company, appellants, v. SAMUEL H. NELSON, receiver of Second United Cons
AttorneyMessrs. Feder & Rinzler and Mr. Louis A. Fast, for the appellants. Mr. John A. Bernhard, for the appellee.
Judge PanelBodine, J. For affirmance -- The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. For reversal -- None.
Case DateOctober 19, 1931
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Page 459

156 A. 459 (N.J.Eq. 1931)

109 N.J.Eq. 78

MATAWAN TILE COMPANY, a corporation, complainant,

v.

SECOND UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a coproration, defendant.

SECOND UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, and THOMAS D. MILLER, HYMAN KRAMER and MOE M. FAST, as trustees for creditors of the Second United Construction Company, appellants,

v.

SAMUEL H. NELSON, receiver of Second United Construction Company, a corporation, appellee

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey

October 19, 1931

Submitted May, 1931 Term.

On appeal from order of the court of chancery.

SYLLABUS

The record in this case demonstrates that the order brought up was properly entered, and that any other action would have been improper.

Messrs. Feder & Rinzler and Mr. Louis A. Fast, for the appellants.

Mr. John A. Bernhard, for the appellee.

Bodine, J. For affirmance -- The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ.

OPINION

BODINE, J.

This is an appeal from an order entered in the court of chancery appointing a statutory receiver for the defendant [109 N.J.Eq. 79] company and granting incidental relief. The complainant, a judgment creditor, filed the bill. The bill was sufficient upon its face and was supported by affidavits proving every material allegation. At the hearing before Vice-Chancellor Church, no disputed facts were presented. Strangely enough, in view of the appeal, it appears from the affidavit of the president of the defendant company that the company had made, some years before, an assignment to

Page 460

trustees of its last remaining asset in order to secure its creditors other than the complainant. It further appears that the trustees still held the bond and mortgage so assigned and could make no distribution of the proceeds thereof till the same was paid. It was also stated by the president in his affidavit that the company had no funds or other assets and was unable to finance itself or to resume its business since it had no property whatever. The proceeds of the mortgage assigned to the trustee appear not sufficient to pay the just claims in full.

A careful examination of the record shows that there was adequate proof of every material jurisdictional fact, and that this proof was offered not only by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...similar result was reached in Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931), where it appeared that large crowds of passengers usually and regularly congregated on defendant's station platform at Jou......
  • 622 A.2d 1295 (N.J. 1993), Lieberman v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
    • United States
    • New Jersey United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • April 14, 1993
    ...by exercise of due care, carrier is liable); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 aff'd, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931) (holding carrier liable when one passenger pushed another between the train and platform Page 1300 because carrier had duty......
  • 220 A.D.2d 564, Monaco v. Harran's Transp. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
    • October 16, 1995
    ...v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 113 N.J.L. 299, 174 A. 501; Sandler v. Hudson & M.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 151 A. 99, affd. 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459). We are unpersuaded by the plaintiffs' Page 565 arguments that Harran's owed Mrs. Monaco a duty of extraordinary care, as she was not, at th......
  • 156 A. 459 (N.J.L. 1931), Sandler v. Manhattan
    • United States
    • New Jersey United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 19, 1931
    ...459 156 A. 459 (N.J.L. 1931) 108 N.J.L. 203 MILDRED SANDLER ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey October 19, 1931 Submitted February 13, 1931. On appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, whose opinion is print......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...similar result was reached in Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931), where it appeared that large crowds of passengers usually and regularly congregated on defendant's station platform at Jou......
  • 622 A.2d 1295 (N.J. 1993), Lieberman v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • April 14, 1993
    ...by exercise of due care, carrier is liable); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 aff'd, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931) (holding carrier liable when one passenger pushed another between the train and Page 1300 because carrier had duty to prote......
  • 220 A.D.2d 564, Monaco v. Harran's Transp. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
    • October 16, 1995
    ...v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 113 N.J.L. 299, 174 A. 501; Sandler v. Hudson & M.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 151 A. 99, affd. 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459). We are unpersuaded by the plaintiffs' Page 565 arguments that Harran's owed Mrs. Monaco a duty of extraordinary care, as she was not, at th......
  • 37 A.3d 469 (N.J. 2012), Davis v. Devereux Foundation
    • United States
    • New Jersey United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • February 29, 2012
    ...428 (App.Div.1988); Page 488 Sandler & Hudson v. Manhattan R.R., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 538, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), aff'd, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931). Commentators have characterized the duty as one of " the highest degree of vigilance, care and precaution." W. P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT