Hassall v. Denelsbeck

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hassall v. Denelsbeck

145 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 330, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 326

DecidedMarch 28, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 145 A. 924 (Hassall v. Denelsbeck) 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

Hassall v. Denelsbeck, 145 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 330, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 326 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action of deceit, the plaintiff claiming that the defendant fraudently induced him to buy and pay for certain stock in a small corporation by false representations touching the solvency and assets' of the company, and that thereafter the company became insolvent and was sold out by the receiver with no money remaining for division among the stockholders. The only reason argued is that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. We have examined the evidence with care and conclude that this ground is without substance. The question for the jury to determine was merely one of veracity as between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the jury resolved this question by determining it in favor of the plaintiff, and, as we think, with good reason.

The rule to show cause will therefore be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action of deceit, the plaintiff claiming that the defendant fraudently induced him to buy and pay for certain stock in a small corporation by false representations touching the solvency and assets' of the company, and that thereafter the company became insolvent and was sold out by the receiver with no money remaining for division among the stockholders. The only reason argued is that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. We have examined the evidence with care and conclude that this ground is without substance. The question for the jury to determine was merely one of veracity as between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the jury resolved this question by determining it in favor of the plaintiff, and, as we think, with good reason.

The rule to show cause will therefore be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 330, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hassall-v-denelsbeck-nj-1929.