Legal Opinion
Gallant v. Fashion Piece Dye Works
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided September 7, 1934PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The bill is filed for the appointment of a receiver pursuant to sections 65 and 66 of the Corporation act. Comp. Stat. p. 1640. In order that the court may exercise the powers given it by the statute, it must appear that the defendant is a corporation. It need not be a corporation de jure but may be one de facto.McCarter v. Ketchem, 72 N.J. Law 247, instances the appointment of a statutory receiver for a de facto corporation. The bill before me states that the defendant, Fashion Piece Dye Works, is an alleged corporation of the State of New Jersey; that its certificate of incorporation was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Nutz v. Murray-Nutz, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1931
- Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Oxford Iron Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1884
- Paragon, C., Corp. v. Paragon LaboratoriesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
- Hoopes v. Basic Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905
3Cited by10 opinions
- Asplund v. Marjohn Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- Cohen v. MillerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Culkin v. Hillside Restaurant, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
- Pharmaceutical Sales & Consulting Corp. v. J.W.S. Delavau Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1999
- Electronic Mechanics, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.