Brimberg v. Hartenfeld Bag Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill, &C.
1Opinion of the Court
Lane, V. C.
This is a hearing on return of an order to show cause why, pending the suit, defendant railroad should not be restrained *426from delivering possession of certain goods in its possession as common carrier, and why defendant Gesas should not be restrained from demanding possession of the goods and from negotiating a negotiable order bill alleged to be in his hands.
The bill sets out that defendant Hartenfeld Bag Company, a foreign corporation, not authorized to do business in this state, is a debtor of complainant; that to secure his debt complainant caused a writ of attachment to be…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Swetland v. SwetlandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
- Elgart v. MintzNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938
- Amm v. AmmNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
- Warren v. New Jersey Zinc Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
- C.B. Q.R.R. Co. v. FowlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.