Feather v. New Jersey Realty & Finance Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Feather v. New Jersey Realty & Finance Corp.

1 N.J. Misc. 360, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 107

DecidedJune 21, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J. Misc. 360 (Feather v. New Jersey Realty & Finance Corp.) 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.

Bluebook

Feather v. New Jersey Realty & Finance Corp., 1 N.J. Misc. 360, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 107 (N.J. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In its general features, this case exhibits such a similarity to the case of Schnitzler v. New York Transportation Co., 76 N. J. L. 171, that, following that precedent, an alternative writ ought to issue.

- The special feature of the matter, on which counsel for respondents lays much stress, is that the certificate of incorporation of the corporate respondent contains certain provisions purporting to limit the right of stockhoklers to examine the books of the corporation, which are effective to bar the present application. This feature was presented in In re De Vengoechea, 86 N. J. L. 35, but not passed upon. The matter is important and should be decided; and wé are clearly unwilling to decide it against relator on this -rule, nor, on the other hand, should it be decided in favor of either party without fuller consideration and argument than the present rule permits. We conclude that an alternative writ should issue, and this question may then be raised on the record, together with the other questions of good faith, &e., arising in the case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

In its general features, this case exhibits such a similarity to the case of Schnitzler v. New York Transportation Co., 76 N. J. L. 171, that, following that precedent, an alternative writ ought to issue.

- The special feature of the matter, on which counsel for respondents lays much stress, is that the certificate of incorporation of the corporate respondent contains certain provisions purporting to limit the right of stockhoklers to examine the books of the corporation, which are effective to bar the present application. This feature was presented in In re De Vengoechea, 86 N. J. L. 35, but not passed upon. The matter is important and should be decided; and wé are clearly unwilling to decide it against relator on this -rule, nor, on the other hand, should it be decided in favor of either party without fuller consideration and argument than the present rule permits. We conclude that an alternative writ should issue, and this question may then be raised on the record, together with the other questions of good faith, &e., arising in the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J. Misc. 360, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feather-v-new-jersey-realty-finance-corp-nj-1923.