Anderson v. Broad Street National Bank
109 A. 205, 91 N.J. Eq. 331, 6 Stock. 331, 1920 N.J. LEXIS 295
Opinion
We concur in the view expressed by the learned vice-chancellor in his opinion filed in this cause, that the case is indistinguishable in principle from Sullivan v. Maroney, 77 N. J. Eq. 565, and that that decision is therefore controlling.
The decree will be affirmed.
[332]*332For. affirm cunee — The Chief-Justice, Sway.ze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Mtnturn, Kalisci-i, Black, White, HepPENHEniEB, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson — 14.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Anderson v. Broad Street National Bank, 109 A. 205, 91 N.J. Eq. 331, 6 Stock. 331, 1920 N.J. LEXIS 295 (N.J. 1920).
109 A. 205 (Anderson v. Broad Street National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Strohsahl v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC'Y. OF US
176 A.2d 814 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
Continental Assur. Co. v. Conroy
111 F. Supp. 370 (D. New Jersey, 1953)
Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. v. Connelly
92 F. Supp. 994 (D. New Jersey, 1950)
O'Brien v. New England, C., Insurance Co.
17 A.2d 555 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1941)
Prudential Insurance Co. v. Mantz
17 A.2d 279 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1941)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Poliakoff
198 A. 852 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1938)
In Re Degnan
194 A. 789 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1937)
In Re Pinals
38 F.2d 117 (D. New Jersey, 1930)
Prudential Ins Co. v. Deyerberg
137 A. 785 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1927)