Clinton Amusement & Improvement Co. v. Dranow

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Clinton Amusement & Improvement Co. v. Dranow

96 A. 893, 88 N.J.L. 701, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 239

DecidedMarch 6, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A. 893 (Clinton Amusement & Improvement Co. v. Dranow) 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

Clinton Amusement & Improvement Co. v. Dranow, 96 A. 893, 88 N.J.L. 701, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 239 (N.J. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in its per curiam, except the statement that the facts showed that the defendants surrendered the premises. We think the facts showed that the premises were not surrendered but were abandoned, and that the plaintiffs thereupon resumed control of them.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chile Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in its per curiam, except the statement that the facts showed that the defendants surrendered the premises. We think the facts showed that the premises were not surrendered but were abandoned, and that the plaintiffs thereupon resumed control of them.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chile Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A. 893, 88 N.J.L. 701, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clinton-amusement-improvement-co-v-dranow-nj-1916.