Ledirk Amusement Co. Inc. v. Schechner
| Decision Date | 15 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 211.,211. |
| Parties | LEDIRK AMUSEMENT CO., Inc., et al. v. SCHECHNER et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Ledirk Amusement Company, Inc., and another against Samuel Schechner and another to require defendants to convey certain property to complainants, for discovery of profits and for a decree for damages sustained by complainants. From a final decree of the Court of Chancery, 133 N.J.Eq. 602, 33 A.2d 894, dismissing their complaint, complainants appeal.
Decree affirmed.
Israel B. Greene, of Newark, for complainants-appellants.
Bilder, Bilder & Kaufman, of Newark (Samuel Kaufman, of Newark, of counsel), for defendant-respondent Samuel Schechner.
Kessler & Kessler, of Newark (Samuel I. Kessler and William L. Vieser, both of Newark, of counsel), for defendant-respondent R. L. S. Corporation.
The relief sought by complainants must be based on their representation that Schechner, a defendant, while their agent or fiduciary violated his trust by purchasing the properties desired by complainants for himself, in the name of the defendant, R. L. S. Corporation. The bill prays that the defendants be decreed to convey the premises to the complainants and the discovery be made of all profits earned in the interval and that a decree for damages sustained by complainants be made against the defendants.
The learned Vice Chancellor advised a decree dismissing the complaint. This appeal is from the decree so advised.
The complainant corporations were owned by Moe Kridel and his two sons. They held long term leases on the two properties and operated moving picture theatres in them. These properties were owned by the Mutual Theatre Company which was under the control of John J. Brothers. He was in poor health and desirous of selling them and had negotiated with Kridel for their sale but without success. Schechner was a friend of long standing of Kridel and knew that the latter desired to purchase the properties. They often discussed the matter while visiting socially at each other's homes. Schechner was engaged in business as a real estate and mortgage broker. He was engaged by Brothers in the fall of 1939 to procure a new mortgage loan on the properties and succeeded in that undertaking. He was thereupon authorized by Brothers to act as broker in finding a purchaser for the properties. Schechner thereafter negotiated with Kridel for the sale but without success. Finally on June 26, 1940, a contract was entered into between the Mutual Theatre Company and the R. L. S. Corporation for the sale and purchase of both theatres. Schechner acted as broker and had a substantial interest in the R. L. S. Corporation which was formed for the purpose of acquiring these properties. The complainants allege that Schechner lied to them concerning this transaction and that they did not learn that he was interested financially in the purchase until about two years later, after which this suit was promptly instituted. It is their contention that Schechner was their agent to procure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyde Park Amusement Co. v. Mogler
...78 S.W.2d 571; Wainscott v. Strode, 237 S.W. 196; Rose v. Houser, 296 S.W.2d 571; Ledirk Amusement Co., Inc., v. Schechner, 33 A.2d 894, 37 A.2d 823; Petroleum Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 3 F.R.D. 181; Mas v. Coca-Cola Co., 163 F.2d 505; Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Artic Iron Co., 261 F. 15; 3......
-
Morley v. J. Pagel Realty and Ins.
...19 Ariz.App. at 293--94, 506 P.2d at 1078. See, Ledirk Amusement Co. v. Schechner, 133 N.J.Eq. 602, 33 A.2d 894 (1943), Aff'd, 135 N.J.Eq. 209, 37 A.2d 823 (1944); Bonanza Real Estate, Inc. v. Crouch, 10 Wash.App. 380, 517 P.2d 1371 (1974). No Arizona decisions have delineated the exact ext......
-
Silverman v. Bresnahan
...fact to the defendant. In Ledirk Amusement Co., Inc., v. Schechner, 133 N.J.Eq. 602, 33 A.2d 894, 897 (Ch.1943), affirmed 135 N.J.Eq. 209, 37 A.2d 823 (E. & A.1944), where the broker was not empowered to fix the price of sale, the court 'In some instances, there is no legal or practical imp......
-
Remer v. Fox
...Hughes, Errors and Appeals, 32 N.J.Eq. 372, 383; Ledirk Amusement Co., Inc. v. Schechner, 133 N.J.Eq. 602, 33 A.2d 894, affirmed 135 N.J.Eq. 209, 37 A.2d 823. This rule is founded upon public policy and not upon injury suffered by the principal. ‘The rule is not intended to be remedial of a......