Hoagland v. Springer

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hoagland v. Springer

186 A.2d 679, 39 N.J. 32, 1962 N.J. LEXIS 142

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedDecember 17, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 186 A.2d 679 (Hoagland v. Springer) 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

Hoagland v. Springer, 186 A.2d 679, 39 N.J. 32, 1962 N.J. LEXIS 142 (N.J. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The refusal of the trial court to vacate the service of summons on the defendant Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division. 75 N. J. Super. 560 (1962).

Subsequent to the oral argument we were advised by agreement of counsel that on April 11, 1960 Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. recorded in the office of the County Clerk of Somerset County, New Jersey, the conditional sale contract between it and William C. Springer covering the diesel engine sold to Springer and installed by it in his Ford tractor. The tractor and the engine were made subject to the contract. Such action on defendant’s part provides additional support for the conclusion that it was properly subjected to service of process of the Superior Court of this State.

Hall and Hanemaüst, JJ., concurring in result.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettiito and Hahe-man — 7.

For reversal — None.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The refusal of the trial court to vacate the service of summons on the defendant Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division. 75 N. J. Super. 560 (1962).

Subsequent to the oral argument we were advised by agreement of counsel that on April 11, 1960 Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. recorded in the office of the County Clerk of Somerset County, New Jersey, the conditional sale contract between it and William C. Springer covering the diesel engine sold to Springer and installed by it in his Ford tractor. The tractor and the engine were made subject to the contract. Such action on defendant’s part provides additional support for the conclusion that it was properly subjected to service of process of the Superior Court of this State.

Hall and Hanemaüst, JJ., concurring in result.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettiito and Hahe-man — 7.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.2d 679, 39 N.J. 32, 1962 N.J. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoagland-v-springer-nj-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack