Legal Opinion

Jewett v. Bowman

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 15, 1878PublishedCited by 1 opinion

On bill, amended bill, answers, and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

The Yice-Chancellok.

This action is brought by the receiver of the Erie Railway Company against a person who, until just before its commencement, was his purchasing agent, and, also, against Sigmund Dringer, a dealer in old metals, who, at its commencement, was engaged in business at Paterson. The bill presents a case of fraud. In my view, the only question necessary to be considered in deciding it is, has the complainant proved the frauds charged against the defendants or either of them. The question is one of fact exclusively. .No legal rules are in dispute, and none need be considered…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Faris v. KingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1827
  2. Greisner v. GreisnerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Burdick v. GrimshawNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API