Central R.R. Co. v. Simandl

4 A.2d 281, 125 N.J. Eq. 91, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 630
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 6, 1939·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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)