Legal Opinion
Paul Delaney Co. v. Joseph Freedman Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided November 17, 1919PublishedCited by 2 opinions
On appeal from the Supreme Court, which on certiorari quashed an order for attachment under sections 84 and 85 of the Practice act of 1903.
1Per curiam
"We agree that the judgment should 1)0 affirmed on the broad ground that the evidence before the Supreme Court showed without dispute that respondents were fraudulently induced to send their property into the state by an express agreement that there should lie no litigation of the former dispute. It is not denied that the rule relating to service of process procured by fraud is broad enough to cover cases of attachment. Roe Williams ads. Reed, 29 N. J. L. 385; Peltier v. Washington Bank, 14 Id. 391, 398; Nason v. Esten, 2 R. I. 337; Spear v. Hubbard, 4 Pick. 143; 6 C. J. 422.
We think it is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Jaudel v. SchoelzkeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
- Pan American Securities Corp. v. Fried, Krupp Aktiengesell-SchaftHudson County Circuit Court, N.J. · 1938