Legal Opinion

Kuser v. Cooke

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided March 29, 1933PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Defendants' motion is to strike out the first and second counts of the complaint. The reasons assigned and urged in support of this motion are that the allegations (1) fail to set forth a cause of action, and (2) are general, vague, lack sufficient particularity and are so framed as to embarrass a fair trial.

The basis for the relief sought under the first count — a dissolution of a mining partnership, c. — is stated therein to be founded upon the alleged existence of a co-partnership agreement between complainants and defendants. All the pertinent allegations, with respect to the creation,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Perkins v. Trinity Realty Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905
  2. Schuler v. Southern Iron & Steel Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1910
  3. Freeman v. HemenwayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
  4. Franklin Trust Co. v. Rutherford, Boiling Springs & Carlstadt Electric Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1898
  5. Hageman v. BrownNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1909

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Alcaro v. Jean Jordeau, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
  2. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. MandelNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
  3. Alcaro v. Jean Jordeau, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
  4. Reed v. GrossNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API