Cruikshank v. Cruickshank

170 A. 659, 115 N.J. Eq. 322, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 763
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 2, 1934
StatusPublished

This text of 170 A. 659 (Cruikshank v. Cruickshank) 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
Cruikshank v. Cruickshank, 170 A. 659, 115 N.J. Eq. 322, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 763 (N.J. 1934).

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The decree appealed from will he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Advisory Master Matthews in the court of chancery.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Teenchaed, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Kays, Heteield, Deae, Wells, Dill, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 A. 659, 115 N.J. Eq. 322, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruikshank-v-cruickshank-nj-1934.