De Lotto v. Zipper

Supreme Court of New Jersey

De Lotto v. Zipper

185 A. 54, 120 N.J. Eq. 339, 1936 N.J. LEXIS 706

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 14, 1936·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill of complaint filed in this cause was dismissed after hearing on the merits. It should have been dismissed on the ground that the court of chancery was without jurisdiction to entertain the bill, and this for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed by Mr. Justice Bodine in this court in the case of Red Oaks, Inc., v. Dorez, Inc., 120 N. J. Eq. 282.

Upon the latter ground the decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Peeskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 10.

For reversal — The Chief-Justice, Heher, JJ. 2.

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

Per Curiam.

The bill of complaint filed in this cause was dismissed after hearing on the merits. It should have been dismissed on the ground that the court of chancery was without jurisdiction to entertain the bill, and this for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed by Mr. Justice Bodine in this court in the case of Red Oaks, Inc., v. Dorez, Inc., 120 N. J. Eq. 282.

Upon the latter ground the decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Peeskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 10.

For reversal — The Chief-Justice, Heher, JJ. 2.

De Lotto v. Zipper, 185 A. 54, 120 N.J. Eq. 339, 1936 N.J. LEXIS 706 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

185 A. 54 (De Lotto v. Zipper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.