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

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 6, 1916·Published

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.

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

Pincite

96 A. 893 (Clinton Amusement & Improvement Co. v. Dranow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.