Bennett v. Piatt

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Bennett v. Piatt

96 A. 895, 85 N.J. Eq. 602, 15 Buchanan 602, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 404

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 6, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A. 895 (Bennett v. Piatt) 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

Bennett v. Piatt, 96 A. 895, 85 N.J. Eq. 602, 15 Buchanan 602, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 404 (N.J. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Griffin. We regret that we must add that the brief filed in this court by counsel for the appellants is of such a character as to deserve severe rebuke. It contains reiterated aspersions upon the character of eminent counsel who appeared below for the respondents, that are unwarranted by anjrthing in the case. We appreciate the feeling that probably prompted counsel for the respondents in this court to pass it by, but we cannot permit a brief of that character to go unnoticed. It will be suppressed and not preserved with the printed record of the case and the respondents’ brief.

[603]*603For affirmance—Tite Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Terhune, Williams, Taylor—10. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The decree is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Griffin. We regret that we must add that the brief filed in this court by counsel for the appellants is of such a character as to deserve severe rebuke. It contains reiterated aspersions upon the character of eminent counsel who appeared below for the respondents, that are unwarranted by anjrthing in the case. We appreciate the feeling that probably prompted counsel for the respondents in this court to pass it by, but we cannot permit a brief of that character to go unnoticed. It will be suppressed and not preserved with the printed record of the case and the respondents’ brief.

[603]*603For affirmance—Tite Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Terhune, Williams, Taylor—10. For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A. 895, 85 N.J. Eq. 602, 15 Buchanan 602, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-piatt-nj-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack