Moore v. Preiss Trading Corp.
Decision Date | 24 April 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 12.,12. |
Citation | 184 A. 521 |
Parties | MOORE v. PREISS TRADING CORPORATION. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. When an affidavit of consideration to a chattel mortgage is taken by a corporation through an attorney or agent, the fact of agency must be verified in the affidavit, and when taken by the corporation per se by a duly qualified officer of the corporation, his official capacity must appear either in the body of the affidavit or in the signature thereto.
2. Hold, an affidavit by "Elias Preiss of Preiss Trading Corporation," and signed "Elias Preiss," is not in compliance with the statute.
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Edward T. Moore, receiver of the Floc-Art Print Works, Incorporated, against the Preiss Trading Corporation to set aside a chattel mortgage. From a decree setting aside the mortgage (119 N.J. Eq. 366, 182 A. 824), defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Beery & Adlman, of Paterson, for appellant.
Herman H. Singer, of Paterson, for respondent.
The receiver of Floc-Art Print Works, Inc., filed his bill of complaint to set aside a chattel mortgage made by Floc-Art Print Works, Inc., to defendant appellant, on the ground that the affidavit to be made by the mortgagee did not comply with the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Act. P.L.1928, p. 131, Supp. to Comp. St.1925—1930, p. 211, § 36—4. The court decreed the mortgage to be invalid, and this appeal brings up for review that decree.
The affidavit to the mortgage is as follows:
The court below held that the affidavit did not comply with the requirements of the statute in that it was not made by the mortgagee or its agent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jarecki v. Manville Bakery
...Co., 108 N.J.Eq. 477, 155 A. 615 (Ch.1931); Moore v. Preiss Trading Corp., 119 N.J.Eq. 366, 182 A. 824 (Ch.1936); affirmed 120 N.J.Eq. 214, 184 A. 521 (E. & A. 1936); DeYoe v. Harper Brothers, Inc., 121 N.J.Eq. 599, 191 A. 851 (E. & A. Moreover the consideration must be completely revealed.......
-
In re Leppert
... ... Moore v. Preiss Trading Corp., Ch.1936, 119 N.J.Eq. 366, 182 A. 824, affirmed E ... ...
-
Sickinger v. Zimel
...In the latter case, the court, citing Moore v. Preiss Trading Corp., 119 N.J.Eq. 366, 182 A. 824 (Ch. 1936), affirmed 120 N.J.Eq. 214, 184 A. 521 (E. & A. 1936), and Lion Shoe Co. v. Price, 108 N.J.Eq. 553, 155 A. 775 (Ch. 1931), said: 'It is held that the true consideration must be set for......
-
de Yoe v. Harper Bros., Inc.
...of the consideration which is truthfully set forth. Moore v. Preiss Trading Corporation, 119 N.J.Eq. 366, 182 A. 824, affirmed 120 N.J.Eq. 214, 184 A. 521. "The testimony of the said Joseph Levine, president of the American Discount Company, in part is as "'Q. You swore that the facts set f......