Morris Plan Corp. v. Schwartz

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Morris Plan Corp. v. Schwartz

150 A. 390, 8 N.J. Misc. 417, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 186

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 19, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 A. 390 (Morris Plan Corp. v. Schwartz) 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

Morris Plan Corp. v. Schwartz, 150 A. 390, 8 N.J. Misc. 417, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 186 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cukiam.

This suit was brought to recover the sum of $130 alleged to be due on a promissory note for $500. The case was tried by the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for $130. The defendant appeals and files two grounds of appeal or specifications of determinations with respect to which he is dissatisfied in point of law, viz., the promissory note sued on is void, being in violation of the statute. Pamph. L. 1914, p. 75, §§ 5, 6. This we think is so under that statute, the judgment of the District Court of East Orange will be reversed. A copy of the promissory note sued on is attached to and made a part of the agreed state of the case. It violates both the spirit and letter of the statute. The case of Consolidated Plan of New Jersey v. Shanholtz, 147 Atl. Rep. 401, is somewhat like the present ease. The reasons stated for holding the note void in that case are applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the East Orange District Court is therefore reversed, with costs.

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

Pee Cukiam.

This suit was brought to recover the sum of $130 alleged to be due on a promissory note for $500. The case was tried by the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for $130. The defendant appeals and files two grounds of appeal or specifications of determinations with respect to which he is dissatisfied in point of law, viz., the promissory note sued on is void, being in violation of the statute. Pamph. L. 1914, p. 75, §§ 5, 6. This we think is so under that statute, the judgment of the District Court of East Orange will be reversed. A copy of the promissory note sued on is attached to and made a part of the agreed state of the case. It violates both the spirit and letter of the statute. The case of Consolidated Plan of New Jersey v. Shanholtz, 147 Atl. Rep. 401, is somewhat like the present ease. The reasons stated for holding the note void in that case are applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the East Orange District Court is therefore reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A. 390, 8 N.J. Misc. 417, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-plan-corp-v-schwartz-nj-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack