From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldberg v. Yeskel

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 25, 1941
19 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1941)

Opinion

Argued February 13th, 1941.

Decided April 25th, 1941.

1. Finding by the Court of Chancery that the defendant's conveyances and transfers of property were fraudulent as against complainant's judgment, affirmed.

2. Allowance of costs and counsel fees by the Court of Chancery was discretionary with that court, and there is nothing in the case to justify interference therewith.

On appeal from the Court of Chancery, whose opinion is reported in 129 N.J. Eq. 404.

Mr. Leo Yanoff, for the respondent.

Messrs. Schotland, Harrison Schotland ( Mr. Philip J. Schotland, of counsel), for the appellants.


Complainant below, a judgment creditor of William Yeskel, filed his bill against William Yeskel and others, praying inter alia, that certain conveyances and transfers of property be declared void as against complainant's judgment and that the same be declared to be the property of William Yeskel and subject to the complainant's judgment, to the end that the said property might be sold discharged of the alleged fraudulent conveyances and transfers and the judgment of complainant satisfied therefrom.

Final hearing being had, the learned Vice-Chancellor determined that the transfers complained of were fraudulent as to complainant. The court, after a review of the testimony, stated, "It is concluded from the testimony that both Sanley Trading Company and William Yeskel Sons, Inc., were in reality owned and operated by William Yeskel and were merely devices interposed by him between his assets and his creditors." Decree in favor of complainant being entered, appeal therefrom is now made.

We have carefully examined the testimony and argument of counsel and find ourselves in agreement with the fact finding of the court below. The allowance of costs and counsel fees by the court below was discretionary with that court, R.S. 2:29-129, et seq., and we find nothing in the case which would justify our interference therewith.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Goldberg v. Yeskel

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 25, 1941
19 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1941)
Case details for

Goldberg v. Yeskel

Case Details

Full title:HARRY GOLDBERG, trading as H. GOLDBERG, complainant-respondent, v. WILLIAM…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Apr 25, 1941

Citations

19 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1941)
19 A.2d 788

Citing Cases

Ready v. Ready

As used in the statute we think it means a judicial examination of issues between the parties, whether they…

Hudson County National Bank v. Southworth

Housing Authority of Newark v. Ryan, 129 N.J. Eq. 277;19 Atl. Rep. 2d 24. Equity will always in a proper case…