Legal Opinion

Kislak v. Muller

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided November 11, 1926PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The bill in this cause was filed to restrain the defendant, among other things, from engaging in the business of a real estate agent, salesman or broker in the city of Hoboken, in violation of his agreement with complainant. The complainant is engaged in the business of a real estate broker in the city of Hoboken, employing a great number of salesmen. On June 15th, 1923, the defendant entered into the employ of complainant under a written agreement. Article 1 thereof is as follows:

"1. That the party of the first part hereby agrees to hire and employ the party of the second part from date of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tatterson v. Suffolk Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  2. Styles v. LyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  2. Art Wire Stamping Co. v. JohnsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  3. 243 So. Harrison St. Corp. v. OgustNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
  4. Perfect Laundry Co. v. MarshNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
  5. Gordon v. Stevens Institute of TechnologyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API