Legal Opinion

Hubbard v. Montross Metal Shingle Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 8, 1909PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On motion in arrest of judgment.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mirturn, J.

The present application is in arrest of a judgment entered in the Camden Circuit against the above-*209named defendant, upon the ground that while the suit was instituted against the defendant, as a corporation, it transpired at the trial that it was not a body corporate, but that the parties comprising it, Levi H. Montross and William. C. Perrin, were partners in trade doing business under that title. Counsel for the plaintiff then requested the court to allow an amendment of the declaration, by making the individual partners defendants in lieu…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Simon v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  2. Wilson v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Lavin v. Emigrant Industrial Savings BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1880
  4. Kauffman v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
  5. Maitland v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1896

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Traffic Telephone Workers' Federation v. DriscollDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1947
  2. Patrick v. BragoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  3. Jefferson v. Hotel Cape MaySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1911
  4. Dayton v. BoettnerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1911
  5. Bel-Rose Silk Co. v. ToySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API