Albert v. Haeberly

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Albert v. Haeberly

70 A. 1100, 74 N.J. Eq. 451, 4 Buchanan 451, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 278

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Albert v. Haeberly. Read the opinion of the Court — 68 N.J. Eq. 664 →

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 15, 1908·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause was heard before the late Vice-Chancellor Grey, who expressed the view that the case was governed by the same legal principles that this court applied in a former litigation between the same parties (Albert v. Haeberly, 68 N. J. Eq. (2 Robb.) 664).

We concur in that view, and the decree under review should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Vooriiees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill-,-16. 'For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This cause was heard before the late Vice-Chancellor Grey, who expressed the view that the case was governed by the same legal principles that this court applied in a former litigation between the same parties (Albert v. Haeberly, 68 N. J. Eq. (2 Robb.) 664).

We concur in that view, and the decree under review should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Vooriiees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill-,-16. 'For reversal — None.

Albert v. Haeberly, 70 A. 1100, 74 N.J. Eq. 451, 4 Buchanan 451, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 278 (N.J. 1908).

Pincite

70 A. 1100 (Albert v. Haeberly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.