McDonald v. Mayzel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

McDonald v. Mayzel

154 A. 626, 108 N.J. Eq. 179, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 482

DecidedApril 17, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A. 626 (McDonald v. Mayzel) 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

McDonald v. Mayzel, 154 A. 626, 108 N.J. Eq. 179, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 482 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of Yiee-Chancellor Berry, denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint as amended. The vice-chancellor based his denial on the ground that the bill was maintainable for an accounting. He further decided that since the agreements, the subject-matter o£ suit, were executed by all of the individual stockholders, officers and directors of the defendant Plaza Hotel Company, the court should retain the bill against that company and the individual defendants.

Our examination of the pleadings, affidavits and stipulation of counsel leads ns to the conclusion that the determination was proper.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13. For reversal—-None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of Yiee-Chancellor Berry, denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint as amended. The vice-chancellor based his denial on the ground that the bill was maintainable for an accounting. He further decided that since the agreements, the subject-matter o£ suit, were executed by all of the individual stockholders, officers and directors of the defendant Plaza Hotel Company, the court should retain the bill against that company and the individual defendants.

Our examination of the pleadings, affidavits and stipulation of counsel leads ns to the conclusion that the determination was proper.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13. For reversal—-None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A. 626, 108 N.J. Eq. 179, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-mayzel-nj-1931.