From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. the Sperry Hutchinson Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 25, 1960
157 A.2d 505 (N.J. 1960)

Opinion

Argued January 12, 1960 —

Decided January 25, 1960.

Mr. Elmer J. Bennett argued the cause for the appellant ( Messrs. Carpenter, Bennett and Morrissey, attorneys; Mr. Milton A. Dauber, on the brief).

Mr. Samuel M. Lane, of the New York bar, and Mr. Donald B. Kipp argued the cause for the respondent ( Messrs. Pitney, Hardin and Ward, attorneys; Mr. Robert P. Hazlehurst, Jr., on the brief).


The judgment of the Appellate Division, 56 N.J. Super. 589, is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. We add that we cannot find in the record sufficient evidence of specifically identifiable property subject to escheat or custody under the statutes, N.J.S. 2 A:37-13 et seq., or N.J.S. 2 A:37-29 et seq. For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices BURLING, JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL and SCHETTINO — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

State v. the Sperry Hutchinson Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 25, 1960
157 A.2d 505 (N.J. 1960)
Case details for

State v. the Sperry Hutchinson Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY GROVER C. RICHMAN, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jan 25, 1960

Citations

157 A.2d 505 (N.J. 1960)
157 A.2d 505

Citing Cases

State v. Elizabethtown Water Co.

United States Steel Corp., supra, 22 N.J., at p. 360), the State's claims are nonetheless derivative and…

Sperry Hutchinson Co. v. O'Connor

As the Commonwealth Court observed in its opinion, O'Connor, Escheator of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v.…