In Re the Dissolution of New Jersey Refrigerating Co.

127 A. 198, 97 N.J. Eq. 358, 12 Stock. 358, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 544
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJanuary 19, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A. 198 (In Re the Dissolution of New Jersey Refrigerating Co.) 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
In Re the Dissolution of New Jersey Refrigerating Co., 127 A. 198, 97 N.J. Eq. 358, 12 Stock. 358, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 544 (N.J. 1925).

Opinion

*359 Per Curiam.

The only matter involved in the determination of the present appeal is the validity of an order of the court of chancery, made upon the application of the receivers of the New Jersey Refrigerating Company, restraining the appellants, Otto A. Lembeck and Alfred J. 0. Allison, from further prosecuting actions at law, brought by them against the corporation prior to the appointment of the receivers, and requiring the transfer of those actions into the court of chancery for determination.

It is entirely settled that the court of chancery may permit an action to be brought in a court of law, having jurisdiction of the subject-matter thereof, by a creditor of a corporation against the receiver of such corporation, or may refuse such permission and compel the litigation to be prosecuted in the equity court. The mere fact that before the appointment of a receiver an action at law has been instituted against the corporation is immaterial in determining the question of the power of the court of chancery, after the appointment of the receiver, to take control of the litigation; for the judgment, if recovered by the plaintiff after the receiver has been appointed, must necessarily be enforced against the assets of the corporation in the hands of the court’s receiver, and such control is an incident to the preservation and distribution of such assets.

We conclude that the making of the order appealed from was within the discretion of the court, and that it should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee - Justice, Trbnchard, Parker, Mtnturn, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 13.

For reversal—None.

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

Related

Garrett v. Nespelem Consolidated Mines, Inc.
139 P.2d 273 (Washington Supreme Court, 1943)
White v. Van Leuven
1930 OK 527 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A. 198, 97 N.J. Eq. 358, 12 Stock. 358, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-dissolution-of-new-jersey-refrigerating-co-nj-1925.