From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weissbard v. Potter Drug Chemical Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 6, 1950
71 A.2d 629 (N.J. 1950)

Summary

finding general rule is that party to a contract is an indispensable party

Summary of this case from Association Headquarters v. Usenix Assoc

Opinion

Argued February 27, 1950 —

Decided March 6, 1950.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chancery Division.

Mr. Sandford Freedman argued the cause for the appellants ( Messrs. Bilder, Bilder Kaufman, attorneys).

Mr. Joseph H. Stamler argued the cause for the respondent ( Messrs. Lorentz Stamler, attorneys).


The judgment will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Freund in the Superior Court, Chancery Division.

For affirmance — Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices CASE, HEHER, WACHENFELD and BURLING — 5.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Weissbard v. Potter Drug Chemical Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 6, 1950
71 A.2d 629 (N.J. 1950)

finding general rule is that party to a contract is an indispensable party

Summary of this case from Association Headquarters v. Usenix Assoc
Case details for

Weissbard v. Potter Drug Chemical Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MAX WEISSBARD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. POTTER DRUG CHEMICAL…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 6, 1950

Citations

71 A.2d 629 (N.J. 1950)
71 A.2d 629

Citing Cases

Utility Blade Razor Co. v. Donovan

Several cases involving such contracts are: Murphy v. Westfield Trust Co., 129 N.J. Eq. 389 ( Ch. 1941),…

Sperry Hutchinson Co. v. Margetts

At the opening of the hearing amicus curiae argued that retail gasoline dealers, being directly affected,…