Electrol Inc. v. Beatty, Marsh & Moyer
This text of 183 A. 174 (Electrol Inc. v. Beatty, Marsh & Moyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The printed state of case does not bring up the proofs taken before the receiver and does not disclose that there were no proofs taken. We cannot surmise that the proofs, if produced, would not sustain the proposition that the value of the goods taken were equal to or greater than the preference allowed to the landlord for rent. We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the vice-chancellor.
*471 For affirmance —The Chief-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 12.
For reversal —None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
183 A. 174, 119 N.J. Eq. 470, 1936 N.J. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electrol-inc-v-beatty-marsh-moyer-nj-1936.