Baily v. Massinger

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Baily v. Massinger

57 A.2d 232, 141 N.J. Eq. 592, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 642

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 29, 1948·Published

Opinion

*606 Per Curiam.

With the exception of the provision for counsel fees, the decree is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the foregoing opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor.

We are of the view that, in the special circumstances, no counsel fee should be assessed against appellant in favor of the respondents J. Chester Massinger and Ruth B. Massinger, his wife, and that the counsel fee assessed against appellant in favor of the respondent John J. Clancy should be reduced to $500; and the decree is modified accordingly.

For affirmance — Wachenfeld, J. 1.

For modification — -The Chief-Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. IS.

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

*606 Per Curiam.

With the exception of the provision for counsel fees, the decree is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the foregoing opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor.

We are of the view that, in the special circumstances, no counsel fee should be assessed against appellant in favor of the respondents J. Chester Massinger and Ruth B. Massinger, his wife, and that the counsel fee assessed against appellant in favor of the respondent John J. Clancy should be reduced to $500; and the decree is modified accordingly.

For affirmance — Wachenfeld, J. 1.

For modification — -The Chief-Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. IS.

Baily v. Massinger, 57 A.2d 232, 141 N.J. Eq. 592, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 642 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

57 A.2d 232 (Baily v. Massinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.