Legal Opinion

Brimberg v. Hartenfeld Bag Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 5, 1918PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Swetland v. SwetlandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  2. Elgart v. MintzNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938
  3. Amm v. AmmNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
  4. Warren v. New Jersey Zinc Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
  5. C.B. Q.R.R. Co. v. FowlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930

6 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