TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Francis v. United Jersey Bank

Francis v. United Jersey Bank, 407 A.2d 1253 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Subsequent history: aff'd, Francis v. United Jersey Bank, 432 A.2d 814 (N.J. 1981). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 26, 1979
Judges
Judges Fritz, Kole and Lane
Citations
407 A.2d 1253171 N.J. Super. 34

Opinion

171 N.J. Super. 34 (1979) 407 A.2d 1253

JOHN J. FRANCIS, HUGH P. FRANCIS AND J. RAYMOND BERRY, TRUSTEES OF PRITCHARD & BAIRD INTERMEDIARIES CORP., PRITCHARD & BAIRD, INC., P & B INTERMEDIARIES CORP., AND P & B, INC., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

v.

UNITED JERSEY BANK, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES H. PRITCHARD, LILLIAN P. OVERCASH, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LILLIAN G. PRITCHARD AND LILLIAN P. OVERCASH, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued October 16, 1979. Decided October 26, 1979.

*35 Before Judges FRITZ, KOLE and LANE.

Mr. Clive S. Cummis argued the cause for appellants ( Messrs. Sills, Beck, Cummis, Radin & Tischman, attorneys; Mr. Thomas J. Demski, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Kenneth F. Oettle on the brief).

Mr. Hugh P. Francis argued the cause for respondents ( Messrs. Francis & Berry, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

We cannot concur with the trial judge in his opinion that the defalcations which here concern us and which are so indisputably manifest might be characterized as fraudulent conveyances as that term is known to the law. The fact is that essentially all *36 the misappropriated monies were actually trust funds. Conversion would be a more appropriate term. The distinction does not affect the result or our view of its propriety.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the trial judge, 162 N.J. Super. 355 (Law Div. 1978), following a motion for new trial or in the alternative a reduction in the judgment, supplementing an oral opinion delivered at the conclusion of the trial, and in turn supplemented by a letter dated August 18, 1978.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1979: 11980: 11981: 11984: 11985: 11990: 11995: 11998: 119792026peak 1979 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gutman v. Howard Savings Bank748 F. Supp. 254 (D.N.J. 1990)
  2. Lynch v. Patterson701 P.2d 1126 (Wyo. 1985)
  3. Telefest, Inc. v. Vu-TV, Inc.591 F. Supp. 1368 (D.N.J. 1984)
  4. Cherokee Insurance Company, by and Through David S. Weed v. E.W. Blanch Company66 F.3d 117 (6th Cir. 1995)
  5. Francis v. United Jersey Bank432 A.2d 814 (N.J. 1981)
  6. State v. Pritchard412 A.2d 1335 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Francis v. United Jersey Bank, 392 A.2d 1233 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list