Central R.R. Co. v. Simandl
4 A.2d 281, 125 N.J. Eq. 91, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 630
Opinion
We have carefully examined the pleadings and proofs in this case, the argument and briefs of counsel, and we concur in the conclusion of the learned vice-chancellor that a preliminary injunction should issue.
The- order appealed from is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Walker, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Central R.R. Co. v. Simandl, 4 A.2d 281, 125 N.J. Eq. 91, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 630 (N.J. 1939).
4 A.2d 281 (Central R.R. Co. v. Simandl) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Claus v. Brodhead
116 A.2d 725 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Clayton v. New Dreamland Roller Skating Rink
82 A.2d 458 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)