Legal Opinion
Broderick v. Abrams
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided January 30, 1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
One of the grounds originally urged was misjoinder of parties, the facts being that several hundred defendants have been joined in what is nominally one action, but several hundred actions combined for convenience, as stockholders of the defunct Bank of the United States, and are severally charged with individual liability to the extent of the par value of the shares held by them respectively.
I disposed of this objection in another case a few weeks ago. See Beatty v. Lincoln Bus Co., 11 N. J. Mis. R. 938; 169 Atl. Rep. 286.
The other principal ground is that by the statute of 1897 (section 94b…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Converse v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Finney v. GuySupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Beatty v. Lincoln Bus Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
3Cited by5 opinions
- Broderick v. RosnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Harris Investment Co. v. HoodSupreme Court of Florida · 1936
- Cunningham v. Brockway Fast Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1940
- Continental Adjustment Corp. v. KlauseUnited States District Court · 1934
- Egbert v. AbramsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935