Legal Opinion

Kronson v. Lipschitz

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided December 27, 1904PublishedCited by 2 opinions

On motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain an action at law.

1Opinion of the Court

Stevenson, V. C. (orally).

I think the only question in this cause is whether the complainant can or cannot have the rights which he sets up in this suit enforced in the court of law in which the action of replevin between these parties is now pending. - The defendant, Lip*368schitz, claims title to the machinery by virtue of a bill of sale made in January, 1902. The complainant, Kronson, claims title to the same machinery bj' virtue of a bill of sale made to him, I think, a year later — in December, 1902 — and executed, not by Lipschitz, but by one Meyer Ilyman. The complainant claims that Meyer…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Township of Ewing v. TrentonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945
  2. W.J. S.S.R.R. Co. v. Atlantic City, C., Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API