Barefoot v. Barefoot
93 A. 192, 83 N.J. Eq. 685, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 402
Opinion
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the -opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Learning.
For affirmance — The- Ci-iiee-Justioe, Garrison, Swayze, Trenoiiard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kaliscii, Black, Bogert, Vrbdenburgh, Terhune, I-Teprenheimer, Williams — 14.
For reversal — Hone.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Barefoot v. Barefoot, 93 A. 192, 83 N.J. Eq. 685, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 402 (N.J. 1914).
93 A. 192 (Barefoot v. Barefoot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sillery v. Fagan
294 A.2d 624 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1972)
Koch v. Koch
232 A.2d 157 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)
Puzio v. Puzio
155 A.2d 115 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1959)
Eldredge v. Eldredge
119 A.2d 483 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Munger v. Munger
90 A.2d 539 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Hupp v. Hupp and Warren
194 S.W.2d 215 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1946)
Wallace v. Wallace
7 S.E.2d 604 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Pierson v. Pierson
189 A. 391 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1937)
Zanzonico v. Zanzonico
186 A. 779 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1936)