The proceeding under review was instituted under the New Jersey Securities Act (N.J.S.A. 49:1-11) designed to prevent cheating in securities. An injunction was granted
and a receiver was appointed. From our examination of the facts, it appears that the proofs supported the conclusion of the learned Vice-Chancellor. The procedure adopted merely followed that sanctioned in Stevens v. Associated Mortgage Co.,107 N.J. Eq. 297" court="N.J. Ct. of Ch." date_filed="1930-12-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/stevens-v-associated-mortgage-co-3568676?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3568676">107 N.J. Eq. 297; affirmed, 110 N.J. Eq. 70" court="N.J." date_filed="1932-02-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/stevens-v-associated-mortgage-c-nj-3560194?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3560194">110 N.J. Eq. 70, and Stevens v.Washington Loan Co., 107 N.J. Eq. 94" court="N.J. Ct. of Ch." date_filed="1930-10-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/stevens-v-washington-loan-co-3565156?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3565156">107 N.J. Eq. 94; affirmed, 109 N.J. Eq. 128" court="N.J." date_filed="1931-10-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/stevens-v-washington-loan-co-8270084?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8270084">109 N.J. Eq. 128.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.