Legal Opinion

Fidelity Trust Co. v. Federal Trust Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided March 26, 1917PublishedCited by 1 opinion

On bill, &c.

1Opinion of the Court

Lane, A7. G.

(after submission of briefs).

First. Does the relationship of creditor and debtor exist as between J. H. Halsejr & Smith and the Newark Advertiser Company? I have not changed my mind that the original intent was that J. H. Halsey & Smith should advance the moneys that it did to James Smith, Jr., and that James Smith, Jr., should advance them to the Newark Advertiser Company, and that no express contract relation existed between the two corporations. It is now said that the relation of creditor and debtor exists by reason of the fact that J. H. Halsey & Smith was without an-' *552tliorit…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. KnoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Evans v. VanbibberTennessee Supreme Court · 1850

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Acuntius v. Steneck Trust Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API