From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eliasberg v. Standard Oil Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 15, 1953
97 A.2d 437 (N.J. 1953)

Summary

finding adequate consideration for a stock option plan where "options [could not] be exercised by the optionees until after one year of service, and the granting and exercise of future options depends upon continuance of service"

Summary of this case from Suppiah v. Sys. 3000, Inc.

Opinion

Argued June 8, 1953 —

Decided June 15, 1953.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Chancery Division.

Mr. Nathan H. Gates of the New York bar argued the cause for the appellant ( Messrs. Osborne, Cornish Scheck, attorneys; Mr. Emanuel P. Scheck, Mr. Stanley L. Kaufman of the New York bar and Mr. Joshua Peterfreund of the New York bar, on the brief).

Mr. Josiah Stryker argued the cause for the respondent ( Messrs. Stryker, Tams Horner, attorneys; Mr. John W. Davis of the New York bar, Mr. George A. Brownell of the New York bar and Mr. Stuart Marks of the New York bar, on the brief).


The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Freund in the court below.

For affirmance — Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices HEHER, OLIPHANT, WACHENFELD, BURLING, JACOBS and BRENNAN — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Eliasberg v. Standard Oil Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 15, 1953
97 A.2d 437 (N.J. 1953)

finding adequate consideration for a stock option plan where "options [could not] be exercised by the optionees until after one year of service, and the granting and exercise of future options depends upon continuance of service"

Summary of this case from Suppiah v. Sys. 3000, Inc.
Case details for

Eliasberg v. Standard Oil Co.

Case Details

Full title:JAY ELIASBERG, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jun 15, 1953

Citations

97 A.2d 437 (N.J. 1953)
97 A.2d 437

Citing Cases

Suppiah v. Sys. 3000, Inc.

Id. at 487. Plaintiff contends that that his continued employment after expressing his concern about the…

Elward v. Peabody Coal Co.

Defendants insist that where shareholders have approved an option it will not be set aside except for fraud.…