Dimler v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Dimler v. Caldwell

100 A. 154, 87 N.J. Eq. 366, 2 Stock. 366, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 473

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 5, 1917·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

So far as concerns the title to the property we agree with Vice-Chancellor Emery and the chancellor. So far as the decree adjudges that the complainant is entitled to a lien for $750 and [368] interest, we have assumed its correctness, since there is no appeal by the defendants from that part of tire decree, and the complainant is not aggrieved thereby. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance—Ti-ib Ci-iiee-Justioe, Garrison, Swayze, Trejstohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Gardner—12. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

So far as concerns the title to the property we agree with Vice-Chancellor Emery and the chancellor. So far as the decree adjudges that the complainant is entitled to a lien for $750 and [368] interest, we have assumed its correctness, since there is no appeal by the defendants from that part of tire decree, and the complainant is not aggrieved thereby. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance—Ti-ib Ci-iiee-Justioe, Garrison, Swayze, Trejstohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Gardner—12. For reversal—None.

Dimler v. Caldwell, 100 A. 154, 87 N.J. Eq. 366, 2 Stock. 366, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 473 (N.J. 1917).

Pincite

100 A. 154 (Dimler v. Caldwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related