Sielcken v. Sorenson
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
The bill is for a partnership accounting and alleges that: Sielcken, Sorenson and Nielsen formed the partnership of Crossman Sielcken, commission merchants, New York, in 1913; Sielcken owned the capital assets; Sielcken was to have seventy-five per cent. of the profits, Sorenson and Nielson each twelve and a half per cent. The firm dissolved September 30th, 1917; Sielcken died October 8th, 1917, in Germany. He was a resident of Germany and by his last will and testament gave his residuary estate, which includes his interest in the firm, to his widow, Clara Sielcken (now Schwarz), and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wertheim v. ClergueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Hoes v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Dewitt v. BuchananNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Ferguson v. NeilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Sielcken v. SorensonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
3Cited by4 opinions
- Standard Surety, C., Co. v. Caravel IndustriesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
- Anderson v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadPassaic County Circuit Court, N.J. · 1940
- Harbrecht v. HarrisonHawaii Supreme Court · 1948
- Kantakevich v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadHudson County Circuit Court, N.J. · 1940