Connolly v. Guardian Casualty Insurance Co. of Buffalo

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Connolly v. Guardian Casualty Insurance Co. of Buffalo

169 A. 690, 115 N.J. Eq. 74, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 726

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 5, 1934·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the opinion below for the reasons given by YiceChancellor Fallon in his opinion. We have nothing to add excepting this: We have' examined the contention of the

appellant that “the counsel fee allowed to counsel for the respondent is excessive.” We think it is not. It was $250, and in the circumstances disclosed by the record was quite justified. The respondent is entitled to costs in this court.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Peeskie, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the opinion below for the reasons given by YiceChancellor Fallon in his opinion. We have nothing to add excepting this: We have' examined the contention of the

appellant that “the counsel fee allowed to counsel for the respondent is excessive.” We think it is not. It was $250, and in the circumstances disclosed by the record was quite justified. The respondent is entitled to costs in this court.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Peeskie, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Connolly v. Guardian Casualty Insurance Co. of Buffalo, 169 A. 690, 115 N.J. Eq. 74, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 726 (N.J. 1934).

Pincite

169 A. 690 (Connolly v. Guardian Casualty Insurance Co. of Buffalo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related