Brewster v. Entz

98 A. 1084, 86 N.J. Eq. 242, 1 Stock. 242, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 443
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 19, 1916·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Griffin. By a slip of the pen, he is made to say that he will allow a decree setting aside the assignment. As the point of the opinion is that the assignment was a forgery, the language of the decree itself is correct in adjudging that the assignment is null and void.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohakd, Parker, Bergen, Mjnturn, Kalisoi-i, Black, White, Teri-iune, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 15.

For reversal — None.

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

Brewster v. Entz, 98 A. 1084, 86 N.J. Eq. 242, 1 Stock. 242, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 443 (N.J. 1916).

98 A. 1084 (Brewster v. Entz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.