Battin v. Battin

94 N.J. Eq. 497
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 5, 1923·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have examined the record in this case, with the result that we have reached the same conclusion as the learned vice-chancellor, who advised the decree in which the respective rights and interest of the parties in the premises are ascertained and adjudged. Also, the bill filed for a partition and a decree of sale of the premises should be sustained.

The decree of the court of chancery is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance—-The Ci-iiee-Justice, Swayze, Tkenchard, Parker, Bergen, Black, Katzenbach, White, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk—11.

For reversal—None.

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

Battin v. Battin, 94 N.J. Eq. 497 (N.J. 1923).

94 N.J. Eq. 497 (Battin v. Battin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bd v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Serv.
937 A.2d 980 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2007)
White v. White
251 A.2d 470 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1969)
Callwood v. Kean
189 F.2d 565 (Third Circuit, 1951)
Trustees, C., First Pres. Church v. Wheeler
149 A. 589 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1930)