Allen v. Francisco Sugar Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Fielder, and reported ante p. Wl.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kalisch, J.
We concur in the result arrived at by the court below, but solely upon the grounds and for the reasons herein set forth. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the learned vice-chancellor and, therefore, they need not be herein specifically reiterated. It is sufficient to state in a general way that the Francisco Sugar Company, a domestic corporation, was about to execute a lease for a period of ten years and eisrht months for its plant and land, practically all its revenue producing property, located in the island of Cuba, to the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Weston and Others v. the City Council of CharlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank v. DearingSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Texas v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Shotwell v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lonsdale, C., Corp. v. International, C., Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
- Bingham v. Savings Invest., C., E. OrangeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
- Johnson v. LamprechtOhio Supreme Court · 1938
- Gen. Invest. Co. v. Amer. Hide Leather Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
- Faunce v. Boost Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.