Legal Opinion

Schalk v. Kingsley

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 15, 1880PublishedCited by 6 opinions

On rule to show cause.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Van Syckel, J.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages which he sustained by injury done to premises upon which he held a mortgage.

The alleged tort was the removal of fixtures from the mortgaged premises,' which were appropriated by one Eogers, a subsequent mortgagee. The defendant, Kingsley, who is an attorney-at-law, was employed by Eogers, as his attorney in this matter. While acting in that capacity, Kingsley, on behalf of Eogers, employed workmen to remove the fixtures, and paid them for their labor.

Two questions are presented by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gooding v. SheaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  2. Ford & Rockwood v. WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
  3. Byrom v. ChapinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
  4. Hardy v. KeelerIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
  5. Hunter v. Burtis & EllsworthNew York Supreme Court · 1833

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. LoBiondo v. SchwartzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2009
  2. Jaffe-Spindler Co. v. Genesco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
  3. Ackerman v. LaganoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
  4. Wheeler v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
  5. Jaffe-Spindler Company and Benjamin D. Jaffe, as General Partner v. Genesco, Inc., and Monumental Life Insurance Company, and I.R.E. Realty Advisors, Inc., the General Partner of and D/B/A Investors Tax Sheltered Real Estate, Ltd., Series Ii, a Florida Limited Partnership, in Re Genesco, Inc. v. Monumental Life Insurance Co. And in Re Jaffe-Spindler Company v. Genesco, IncCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984

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

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

Powered by the Exa API