Legal Opinion

Pearlman v. Krasner

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 25, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The defendant corporation operates a small broom factory and the defendants Krasner Wiener ran the business, but not with any marked degree of success. Each held fifty shares of the company stock, and, needing more capital, they induced the complainant to invest $2,500, for which he received fifty shares. One of the inducements was a written statement by them of the company's financial condition, that the assets were of the value of $5,000 (cash $598.61, machinery $3,504.41 and other assets $896.98), and its debts $382, and outstanding capital stock $5,000. It was testified that the machinery…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. De Witt v. Van SickleNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878
  2. Condon v. SandhoweNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  3. Hubbard v. International Mercantile AgencyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1904
  4. Industrial Savings & Loan Co. v. PlummerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
  5. Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Berger v. Harrison Improvement Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  2. Pridmore v. SteneckNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API