Opinion · Supreme Court of New Jersey
Montclair Trust Co. v. the Star Co.
Montclair Tr. Co. v. Star Co., 141 N.J. Eq. 263 (N.J. 1948)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of New Jersey
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
- Date
- 1948-01-29
- Topic
- general
Per Curiam. This case was orally argued with No. 214, October term, 1949, The Star Co. v. Montclair Trust Co. Our consideration thereof and of the proofs and briefs, leads us to conclude that the decree of the court beluvy was proper in the following particulars, and we affrm the decree in so far as it dismissed appellant’s counter-claim, determined that there was due and owing to complainant the sum of $97,214.10, directed a special master to make sale of the remaining assets, and the distribution to be made of the proceeds. The decree is faulty and should be amended in the following particulars: The property to be sold is not set out, but is described in schedules annexed; the recitals attempt to effectuate several negative adjudications against appellant as to precise questions put in issue and on which it was unsuccessful; it contains recitals of the pleadings and the matter contained should be more succinctly stated.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Montclair Trust Co. v. the Star Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
This case was orally argued with No. 214, October term, 1949, The Star Co. v. Montclair Trust Co. Our consideration thereof and of the proofs and briefs, leads us to conclude that the decree of the court beluvy was proper in the following particulars, and we affrm the decree in so far as it dismissed appellant’s counter-claim, determined that there was due and owing to complainant the sum of $97,214.10, directed a special master to make sale of the remaining assets, and the distribution to be made of the proceeds.
The decree is faulty and should be amended in the following particulars: The property to be sold is not set out, but is described in schedules annexed; the recitals attempt to effectuate several negative adjudications against appellant as to precise questions put in issue and on which it was unsuccessful; it contains recitals of the pleadings and the matter contained should be more succinctly stated. Bull v. International Power Co., 84 N. J. Eq. 209; affirmed, 85 N. J. Eq. 206; Beall v. New York and New Jersey Water Co., 87 N. J. Eq. 390; N. J. S. A. 2:29-52.
The record will be remanded to the Court of Chancery for disposition consistent herewith.
For affirmance — The Chibe-Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill,-Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.