Cappa v. MacArthur
Decision Date | 19 January 1943 |
Docket Number | 129/390. |
Citation | 29 A.2d 718,133 N.J.Eq. 7 |
Parties | CAPPA v. MacARTHUR. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a chattel mortgage was given to secure both an antecedent indebtedness and further credit, it will not be set aside as in fraud of creditors where further credit was in fact extended and the mortgagee had no knowledge of the insolvency.
Action by Joseph Cappa, as receiver of Central Cleaning & Dyeing Co., Inc., a corporation of New Jersey, against Joseph A. MacArthur, trading as MacArthur Petroleum & Solvent Company, to set aside a chattel mortgage.
Decree of dismissal advised in accordance with opinion.
Harry Eisenberg, of Newark, for complainant.
Samuel S. Black, of Paterson, for defendant.
LEWIS, Vice Chancellor.
This suit is brought by the receiver of a corporation to set aside as fraudulent a chattel mortgage covering certain of the machinery and equipment of the corporation. The mortgage was executed July 17, 1939, and by its terms was to secure a debt then due to the mortgagee in the amount of $198.72, together with any further indebtedness that might be due and owing not to exceed the amount of $400. In December, 1939, the defendant mortgagee took possession of most of the articles covered by the mortgage and sold them for the sum of $284. It is contended by complainant that the corporation was hopelessly insolvent at the time of the execution of the mortgage; that defendant had notice of this condition and that the mortgage was wholly for an antecedent consideration. He relies upon the Revised Statutes 14:14-2, N.J.S.A. 14:14-2, which read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Toms River Pub. Co. v. Borough of Manasquan, Monmouth County
...to enjoin the enforcement of invalid ordinances or the abuse of administrative powers granted by the Legislature. Cappa v. MacArthur, 133 N.J.Eq. 4, 6--7, 29 A.2d 718 (Ch.1943). That portion of Ordinance 884 under attack is so overbroad as to be facially unconstitutional. An injunction will......
-
In re Ira Haupt & Company
...to the Allied suits — "new" because neither case relied upon by objectants supports a running account theory. Cappa v. MacArthur, 133 N.J.Eq. 7, 29 A.2d 718 (N. J.Ch.1943), is an extremely confusing and short opinion which has never again been cited by any court for anything, and Schwartz v......
- Jersey City v. State Tax Com'r