Tannenbaum v. Seacoast Trust Co. of Asbury Park

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Tannenbaum v. Seacoast Trust Co. of Asbury Park

5 A.2d 778, 125 N.J. Eq. 360, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 667

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 21, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.2d 778 (Tannenbaum v. Seacoast Trust Co. of Asbury Park) 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

Tannenbaum v. Seacoast Trust Co. of Asbury Park, 5 A.2d 778, 125 N.J. Eq. 360, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 667 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are in accord with the conclusions reached by the learned yice-ehancellor respecting the issues raised by the exceptions to the special master’s report; and the decree is therefore affirmed.

And we are also of the view that the vice-chancellor properly denied the motion to reopen the decree for the purpose of moving for a rehearing. As the vice-chancellor pointed out in his unreported conclusions, the “newly discovered evidence” offered in support of the application did not fall into that category, and, in any event, it was not “such as would have changed, or be likely to have changed, the result if it had been introduced at the hearing.”

It is claimed that this evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the securities in question “had been withdrawn' from the vault where the trust fund securities were kept” before appellants’ incumbency as trustee-pledgees, but it plainly did not tend in that direction. While the securities were actually taken from the vault during the incumbency of appellants’ predecessors, it was for the purpose of foreclosure merely, and, as found by the vice-chancellor, the withdrawal of the securities from the trust fund took place while appellants were in office. Mr. Kinmonth testified that he deemed the remaining securities “ample.” There was no direct personal benefit. The obvious purpose was to improve the bank’s financial standing. But this does not serve to absolve appellants from responsibility for the loss of the securities.

*362 For affirmance — -The Chiee-Justioe, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, WolesKeil, Eaeeerty, Hague, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Case, Donges, Wells, JJ. 3.

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

Per Curiam.

We are in accord with the conclusions reached by the learned yice-ehancellor respecting the issues raised by the exceptions to the special master’s report; and the decree is therefore affirmed.

And we are also of the view that the vice-chancellor properly denied the motion to reopen the decree for the purpose of moving for a rehearing. As the vice-chancellor pointed out in his unreported conclusions, the “newly discovered evidence” offered in support of the application did not fall into that category, and, in any event, it was not “such as would have changed, or be likely to have changed, the result if it had been introduced at the hearing.”

It is claimed that this evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the securities in question “had been withdrawn' from the vault where the trust fund securities were kept” before appellants’ incumbency as trustee-pledgees, but it plainly did not tend in that direction. While the securities were actually taken from the vault during the incumbency of appellants’ predecessors, it was for the purpose of foreclosure merely, and, as found by the vice-chancellor, the withdrawal of the securities from the trust fund took place while appellants were in office. Mr. Kinmonth testified that he deemed the remaining securities “ample.” There was no direct personal benefit. The obvious purpose was to improve the bank’s financial standing. But this does not serve to absolve appellants from responsibility for the loss of the securities.

*362 For affirmance — -The Chiee-Justioe, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, WolesKeil, Eaeeerty, Hague, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Case, Donges, Wells, JJ. 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.2d 778, 125 N.J. Eq. 360, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tannenbaum-v-seacoast-trust-co-of-asbury-park-nj-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack