Burdge v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Burdge v. Johnson

93 A. 1084, 84 N.J. Eq. 500, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 366

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 14, 1915·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Our consideration of this case leads us to the conclusion that both the order reviving the suit, and the order refusing to strike out defendants’ cross-bill, were justified by the facts appearing in the cause; and that therefore each of them should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Vredenburgh, White, Terhune, Williams — 12. For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

Our consideration of this case leads us to the conclusion that both the order reviving the suit, and the order refusing to strike out defendants’ cross-bill, were justified by the facts appearing in the cause; and that therefore each of them should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Vredenburgh, White, Terhune, Williams — 12. For reversal — None.

Burdge v. Johnson, 93 A. 1084, 84 N.J. Eq. 500, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 366 (N.J. 1915).

Pincite

93 A. 1084 (Burdge v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.