Burdge v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Burdge v. Johnson

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

DecidedJune 14, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A. 1084 (Burdge v. Johnson) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A. 1084, 84 N.J. Eq. 500, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burdge-v-johnson-nj-1915.