Fairclough v. Baumgartner

84 A.2d 545, 8 N.J. 187
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 19, 1951·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

8 N.J. 187 (1951)
84 A.2d 545

ELMER FAIRCLOUGH AND MARTHA FAIRCLOUGH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
HERMAN BAUMGARTNER AND THERESA BAUMGARTNER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued November 12, 1951.
Decided November 19, 1951.

*190 Mr. J. Mortimer Rubenstein argued the cause for the appellants (Mr. Milton Schamach, attorney).

Mr. I. Arthur Weiss argued the cause for the respondents (Messrs. Weiss & Weiss, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Grimshaw.

For affirmance — Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices CASE, OLIPHANT, WACHENFELD, BURLING and ACKERSON — 6.

For reversal — None.

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

Fairclough v. Baumgartner, 84 A.2d 545, 8 N.J. 187 (N.J. 1951).

84 A.2d 545 (Fairclough v. Baumgartner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Congregation Sons of Israel v. Congregation Meorosnosson, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2026
Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services
9 A.3d 882 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
Leasehold Estates, Inc. v. Fulbro Holding Co.
136 A.2d 423 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)