Baer v. Beaver Lake Realty Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Baer v. Beaver Lake Realty Co.

160 A. 334, 110 N.J. Eq. 654, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 829

DecidedMay 16, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A. 334 (Baer v. Beaver Lake Realty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baer v. Beaver Lake Realty Co., 160 A. 334, 110 N.J. Eq. 654, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 829 (N.J. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill was dismissed on the ground that it was devoid of merit.

Whether under the facts as shown in the case the court of chancery had jurisdiction to entertain the bill, which was to restrain further proceedings in a small cause court where the defendant had obtained judgment for possession of the property involved in the litigation, and where the matters alleged in the bill were passed upon in that court, is more than doubtful (Raimondi v. Bianchi, 102 N. J. Eq. 254), but as it is not necessary to pass upon the question on this appeal no opinion is expressed thereon.

The decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trehchard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Van Bus-kirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Kerney, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The bill was dismissed on the ground that it was devoid of merit.

Whether under the facts as shown in the case the court of chancery had jurisdiction to entertain the bill, which was to restrain further proceedings in a small cause court where the defendant had obtained judgment for possession of the property involved in the litigation, and where the matters alleged in the bill were passed upon in that court, is more than doubtful (Raimondi v. Bianchi, 102 N. J. Eq. 254), but as it is not necessary to pass upon the question on this appeal no opinion is expressed thereon.

The decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trehchard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Van Bus-kirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Kerney, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A. 334, 110 N.J. Eq. 654, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baer-v-beaver-lake-realty-co-nj-1932.