Oliver v. Autographic Register Co.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 89.,89. |
| Citation | 183 A. 171 |
| Parties | Walter E. OLIVER, Respondent, v. AUTOGRAPHIC REGISTER COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Wurts & Plympton, of Hackensack, for appellant.
Isaacs & Gunther, of Union City, for respondent.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Lewis, reported in 118 N.J.Eq. 72, 177 A. 680.
For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, and PERSKIE, and Judges HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, and RAFFERTY—12.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
American Photocopy Equipment Co. v. Ampto, Inc.
...479 (E. & A.1929). See also Oliver v. Autographic Register Co., 118 N.J.Eq. 72, 75, 177 A. 680 (Ch.1935), affirmed o.b. 119 N.J.Eq. 481, 183 A. 171 (E. & A.1936); Royal Blue, &c., Inc. v. Delaware River, &c., Inc., 140 N.J.Eq. 19, 23, 52 A.2d 763 (Ch.1947), appeal dismissed, 2 N.J. 73, 65 A......
- Oliver v. Autographic Register Co.
- Feingold v. S. S. Kresge Co.
-
Royal Blue Coaches Inc. v. Del. River Coach Lines Inc.
...the defendant from denying their validity. See Oliver v. Autographic Register Co., 118 N.J.Eq. 72, 75, 177 A. 680, affirmed 119 N.J.Eq. 481, 183 A. 171. The representatives of the defendant should have apprised the complainant of the lack of authority of the officers who executed the agreem......