Case Name: August Henkels et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; William P. Amend et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; Eugene Kierspel et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; Walter Kirschner, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; Gunda Wesser, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; Henry Hoffman et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; Gustave Melchior et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; Arthur Maier, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants; Anna Bomm, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1936-10-02
Citations: 120 N.J. Eq. 593
Docket Number: 
Parties: August Henkels et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. William P. Amend et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Eugene Kierspel et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Walter Kirschner, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Gunda Wesser, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Henry Hoffman et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Gustave Melchior et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Arthur Maier, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Anna Bomm, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 593–595

Head Matter:
August Henkels et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. William P. Amend et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Eugene Kierspel et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Walter Kirschner, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Gunda Wesser, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Henry Hoffman et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Gustave Melchior et al., complainants-respondents, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Arthur Maier, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants. Anna Bomm, complainant-respondent, v. Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation et al., defendants-appellants.
[Argued May 20th, 1936.
Decided October 2d, 1936.]
Mr. Israel B. Greene, for the appellant Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation.
Mr. Laurence Semel (Mr. Meyer M. Semel, of counsel), for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
These are fact cases. Each complainant sought rescission of his subscription to stock of defendant Pyramid Bond and Mortgage Corporation on the allegations that he was induced to purchase the stock on sundry misrepresentations of the defendant through its agents, servants and employes. Defendant answered below, and argues here, that (1) there was no fraud; (2) assuming there was fraud respondents by their acts ratified their contracts; and (3) that assuming there was fraud, as found by the vice-chancellor, respondents did not act with the promptness required in cases of rescission.
We find no merit in appellant's contentions. For, we have carefully examined the proofs and are satisfied that they fully support the result reached by the learned vice-chancellor in each case.
The decrees are affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Chieb-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Hehee, Peeseie, Hetbield, Deae, Wells, Wolbs-Keil, Babbeety, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.