Case Name: ABRAHAM PINKUS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. FRITZ SIEGEL ET UX., DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-05-26
Citations: 2 N.J. Misc. 433
Docket Number: 
Parties: ABRAHAM PINKUS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. FRITZ SIEGEL ET UX., DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
ABRAHAM PINKUS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. FRITZ SIEGEL ET UX., DEFENDANTS.
Submilted February term, 1924
Decided May 26, 1924.
Malicious Taking — Defense That Goods Taken Were Not Fixtures but Chattels.
On rule, &c.
Before Gviimeuk, Chief Justice, and Justices Mtntcrx and Black.
For the plaintiffs, Stamler, Stamler & Koexller.
For the defendant, Abe J. David.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This suit was brought to recover damages for a malicious taking and carrying away certain goods from premises Nos. 4(30' and 462 Elizabeth avenue, Elizabeth, New Jersey. The defendants had sold to the plaintiffs the. premises for $24,000 under a written contract dated October 26th, 1922, which contained this clause over which the dispute arose, viz.: "Eront and back bar fixtures" and all other fixtures in buildings to remain except piano "and pictures on the wall." The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs for' $2,500. The defense was the property in question was not fixtures, but chattels, and not within the terms of the contract, and which were-not agreed to be sold. If this is not so, then it so argued, the value of the goods taken away by the defendant Siegel was not $2,500. We think the case was fairly tried and the jury was justified in finding the verdict that was reached. The rule to show cause is discharged.