van Name v. Fed. Deposit Ins Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 September 1942 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 203, 204.,s. 203, 204. |
| Citation | 28 A.2d 210,132 N.J.Eq. 302 |
| Parties | VAN NAME v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Elmer G. Van Name against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to enjoin defendant permanently from proceeding with a suit at law to enforce payment of two notes. From a decree of a court of chancery, 130 N.J.Eq. 433, 23 A. 2d 261, dismissing the bill, the complainant appeals. Decree affirmed.
Carl Kisselman, of Camden, for appellant.
Grover C. Richman, of Camden, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Elmer G. Van Name, from a decree of the Court of Chancery, advised by Vice Chancellor Woodruff (whose conclusions are reported in 130 N.J.Eq. 433, 23 A.2d 261), dismissing the bill of complaint which sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from proceeding with a suit at law which had been instituted by defendant in the New Jersey Supreme Court to enforce payment of two promissory notes made by the complainant and owned by the defendant.
The ground upon which complainant based his claim for relief was that he and defendant's predecessors in title to the notes in question entered into an unexecuted compromise agreement as to such notes and that defendant's suit thereon was in violation thereof. Complainant, alleging that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and was without adequate remedy in the courts of law, asked the Court of Chancery not only for the restraint of the suit at law but also that the defendant be compelled specifically to perform the said agreement with complainant.
Defendant admits that on several occasions there were discussions as to the compromise of these obligations but insists that there was never an integration of a contract and that defendant's assignor always conditioned any possible compromise upon a settlement of the claims of all other bank creditors upon the same basis, but that complainant secretly made more liberal settlement with other banks and that, in consequence, there was never a meeting of the minds.
The learned Vice Chancellor found from the evidence that no contract or compromise was effected; that at no time did the parties express an intention to make or contemplate making the same contract; that the two banks involved (defendant's predecessors in title to the notes) believed, and were justified in believing, that all creditor banks of the complainant were to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Educ. of Borough of Englewood Cliffs, Bergen County v. Board of Educ. of City of Englewood, Bergen County
...not justified by the facts. Van Name v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 130 N.J.Eq. 433, 442-43, 23 A.2d 261 (Ch. 1941), aff'd, 132 N.J.Eq. 302, 28 A.2d 210 (E. & A.1942). We Here, we have affirmed the State Board's determination that the Tenafly tuition policy had a serious negative impact on ......
-
Horizon Health Center v. Felicissimo
...of the court, under the circumstances and the facts of the particular case. It is the strong arm of equity."), aff'd, 132 N.J.Eq. 302, 28 A.2d 210 (E. & A.1942). The Chancery Division can exercise equitable authority, including the granting of injunctions. See N.J. Const. art. VI, § 3, para......
-
Ireland v. Wynkoop
...specific performance of the agency contract, See Van Name v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 130 N.J.Eq. 433, 23 A.2d 261, Aff'd, 132 N.J.Eq. 302, 28 A.2d 210, which is improper. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 463, comment c. Cf. Chain v. Pye, supra (promoter's contract not specifically ......
-
Camden Trust Co. v. Toone
...always reluctant to interfere with an action at law. Van Name v. Federal Deposit Ins. Co., 130 N.J.Eq. 433, 23 A.2d 261, affirmed 132 N.J.Eq. 302, 28 A.2d 210; Long Dock Co. v. Bentley, 37 N.J.Eq. 15, affirmed, 37 N.J.Eq. 330; Teas v. Third Nat. Bank & Trust Co., Err. and App., 125 N.J.Eq. ......