Ehnes v. Monroe Loan Society
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Per curiam
We concur in the result reached by the learned vice-chancellor, and for the most part, in his reasoning.
In his conclusions the paper of July 8th, 1935, is called “a formal contract for the purchase of certain accounts,” &c. The language seems to indicate an executory contract, but in fact and law the instrument is an executed contract, just as a deed is an executed contract. It is in form a bill of sale, presently conveying, assigning, and transferring the accounts mentioned in the attached and incorporated schedules, with special covenants (a) of legal existence of defendant as a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Asbestos Fibres, Inc. v. Martin Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1953
- Millhurst Milling & Drying Co. v. Automobile Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- Paruch v. RasiewiczSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1940
- Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines v. Unit Construction Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937