Crouse v. Sloan

133 A. 392, 99 N.J. Eq. 879, 14 Stock. 879, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 515

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree under appeal will be affirmed, substantially for the reasons contained in the conclusions of Vice-Chancellor Roster. There seems to be some slight confusion in the ease as to whether the “Butler Building” had originally one store which ivas converted into two^ or two stores which were converted into one. Ror the purpose of decision it is immaterial, the revelant fact being that at the time of that conversion the stairway in the Butler Building was taken out, and access to the upper floors had through the Sloan building. In the reasoning and result as appearing in, the conclusions we fully concur.

The decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Teen chard, Parker, Minturn, Kahscii, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.