Opinion · Supreme Court of New Jersey
Kurtz v. Oremland
Kurtz v. Oremland, 16 N.J. 454 (N.J. 1954)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of New Jersey
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
- Date
- 1954-11-22
- Topic
- commercial
How later courts describe this case
- "A conspiracy cannot be made the subject of a civil action unless something is done which without the conspiracy would give a right of action. The damage is the essence of the action, not the conspiracy."
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Kurtz v. Oremland. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 7 opinions
JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
BENJAMIN OREMLAND, PEARL OREMLAND, DAVID LEWIS AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
DUNN'S ENGLISH LEATHER SHOP, INC., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, AND LOUIS W. DUNN AND JESSIE R. DUNN, AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued November 8, 1954. Argued November 15, 1954. Decided November 22, 1954.Mr. Bernard Hellring argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Greene & Hellring, attorneys).
Mr. David M. Perskie, Mr. William Elmer Brown, Jr., and Mr. Carl Kisselman argued the cause for the respondents (Messrs. Perskie and Perskie, and Messrs. Brown and Frank, attorneys).
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Haneman in the court below. 33 N.J. Super. 443 (Ch. Div. 1954).
For affirmance Justices HEHER, OLIPHANT, WACHENFELD and BURLING 4.
For reversal Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices JACOBS and BRENNAN 3.