Pinkus v. Siegel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Pinkus v. Siegel

2 N.J. Misc. 433, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 169

DecidedMay 26, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 433 (Pinkus v. Siegel) 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

Pinkus v. Siegel, 2 N.J. Misc. 433, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 169 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages for a malicious taking and carrying away certain goods from premises Nos. 4(30' and 462 Elizabeth avenue, Elizabeth, New Jersey. The defendants had sold to the plaintiffs the. premises for $24,000 under a written contract dated October 26th, 1922, which contained this clause over which the dispute arose, viz.: “Eront and back bar fixtures” and all other fixtures in buildings to remain except piano "and pictures on the wall.” The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs for' $2,500. The defense was the property in question was not fixtures, but chattels, and not within the terms of the contract, and which were-not agreed to be sold. If this is not so, then it so argued, the value of the goods taken away by the defendant Siegel was not $2,500. We think the case was fairly tried and the jury was justified in finding the verdict that was reached. The rule to show cause is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages for a malicious taking and carrying away certain goods from premises Nos. 4(30' and 462 Elizabeth avenue, Elizabeth, New Jersey. The defendants had sold to the plaintiffs the. premises for $24,000 under a written contract dated October 26th, 1922, which contained this clause over which the dispute arose, viz.: “Eront and back bar fixtures” and all other fixtures in buildings to remain except piano "and pictures on the wall.” The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs for' $2,500. The defense was the property in question was not fixtures, but chattels, and not within the terms of the contract, and which were-not agreed to be sold. If this is not so, then it so argued, the value of the goods taken away by the defendant Siegel was not $2,500. We think the case was fairly tried and the jury was justified in finding the verdict that was reached. The rule to show cause is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 433, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkus-v-siegel-nj-1924.