Sokol v. Fidelity Union Trust Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sokol v. Fidelity Union Trust Co.

48 A.2d 207, 138 N.J. Eq. 429, 1946 N.J. LEXIS 363

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 27, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 48 A.2d 207 (Sokol v. Fidelity Union Trust 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

Sokol v. Fidelity Union Trust Co., 48 A.2d 207, 138 N.J. Eq. 429, 1946 N.J. LEXIS 363 (N.J. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

As pointed out in the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor, the payments of Mica Facing Corporation to the respondent Trust Company came from three sources: (a) funds of the parent corporation or other third parties; (b) security held on May 14th, 1937; and (c) accounts assigned August 2oth, 1937. With his decision as regards the first two we have no fault to find. As regards the third, which relates to the assignment on August 2oth by the Mica Facing Company to the Fidelity Union Trust Company, its depositary and creditor of “all Mica’s accounts receivable as well as its formulas” the trial court held, and properly that the burden was on the complainant, the present appellant, of proving that the Mica Company was then insolvent. With this we agree, *430 but we do not agree that complainant failed to sustain that burden. “Insolvency” as held in a long line of cases, such as Empire Trust Co. v. Trustees, 67 N. J. Eq. 602, “denotes a general inability to meet pecuniary liabilities as they mature, by means of either available assets or an honest use of credit.” That such a condition existed in this ease is clear. As to knowledge by the trust company, perhaps the best evidence is its insistence on taking over from Mica “all its accounts receivable as well as its formulas” in the language of the Vice-Chancellor.

As regards this phase of the case the decree of dismissal will be reversed, with directions to award to the appellant the accounts receivable on August 25th, 1937, and the formulas then assigned. In other respects the decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — Colie, Oliphant, Wells, Dill, Freund, JJ. 5.

For reversal — The Chibe-Justice, Parker, Donges, Heiier, Perskie, Raeeerty, McGeehan, JJ. 7.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

As pointed out in the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor, the payments of Mica Facing Corporation to the respondent Trust Company came from three sources: (a) funds of the parent corporation or other third parties; (b) security held on May 14th, 1937; and (c) accounts assigned August 2oth, 1937. With his decision as regards the first two we have no fault to find. As regards the third, which relates to the assignment on August 2oth by the Mica Facing Company to the Fidelity Union Trust Company, its depositary and creditor of “all Mica’s accounts receivable as well as its formulas” the trial court held, and properly that the burden was on the complainant, the present appellant, of proving that the Mica Company was then insolvent. With this we agree, *430 but we do not agree that complainant failed to sustain that burden. “Insolvency” as held in a long line of cases, such as Empire Trust Co. v. Trustees, 67 N. J. Eq. 602, “denotes a general inability to meet pecuniary liabilities as they mature, by means of either available assets or an honest use of credit.” That such a condition existed in this ease is clear. As to knowledge by the trust company, perhaps the best evidence is its insistence on taking over from Mica “all its accounts receivable as well as its formulas” in the language of the Vice-Chancellor.

As regards this phase of the case the decree of dismissal will be reversed, with directions to award to the appellant the accounts receivable on August 25th, 1937, and the formulas then assigned. In other respects the decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — Colie, Oliphant, Wells, Dill, Freund, JJ. 5.

For reversal — The Chibe-Justice, Parker, Donges, Heiier, Perskie, Raeeerty, McGeehan, JJ. 7.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.2d 207, 138 N.J. Eq. 429, 1946 N.J. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sokol-v-fidelity-union-trust-co-nj-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack