Legal Opinion
Mechanics Finance Co. v. Austin
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided January 28, 1952PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hbher, J.
We are concerned here with the construction of R. S. 2:32-180, as amended by chapter 73 of the Session ■Laws of-1943 (Pamph. L., p. 282), providing that when a judgment has been recovered in a district court of New Jersey, and “any wages, debts, earnings, salary, income from trust funds or profits are due and owing to the judgment debtor, or shall thereafter become due and owing to him,” in an amount as therein specified, the judgment creditor may “without notice to the judgment debtor, apply to the court in which the judgment was recovered,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Harris v. BalkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Helvering v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. RaynorSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Federal Communications Commission v. Columbia Broadcasting System of California, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Heald v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Liscinski v. Mosley (In Re Mosley)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · 1984
- Newark Bldg. Assoc. v. Dir., Div. of TaxationNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- Texas Pipe Line Co. v. SnelbakerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- Richman v. PrattNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1980
- Faubel v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.