Legal Opinion

Posselt v. D'Espard

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided June 21, 1917PublishedCited by 4 opinions

On bill, &c.

1Opinion of the Court

Lane, Y. C.

(orally).

I am going to decide the case of D’Espard v. Fritz Schulz Junior Co., on application for appointment of a receiver.

The following- facts appear: In October, 1905, the company was incorporated under the laws of this state for the purpose of manufacturing a. metal polish. The capital stock was owned wholly by a German corporation. No money was invested except that invested by the German concern. At that time the German company had a sales agreement with a company known as Raimes & Company, Ld., of London. The purpose of 'the incorporation of the Fritz Schulz Junior Company in…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. McDougall v. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. & C. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Security Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. New Jersey Paper Board & Wall Paper Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1899
  3. Bell v. RomaineNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878
  4. Nyitray v. McAlonanOhio Court of Appeals · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API