Falconer v. Ricker Realty Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Falconer v. Ricker Realty Co.

176 A. 165, 117 N.J. Eq. 452, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 668

DecidedJanuary 10, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A. 165 (Falconer v. Ricker Realty Co.) 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

Falconer v. Ricker Realty Co., 176 A. 165, 117 N.J. Eq. 452, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 668 (N.J. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, advised by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, dismissing the bill of complaint which sought an injunction to prevent the defendants-respondents from obstructing the natural flow of the waters of a stream at a point above lands of complainant-appellant. The vice-chancellor held that the proofs adduced by the appellant failed to sustain the cause of action set out in the hill of complaint.

A careful consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the court below was correct in the finding on the facts, and the decree should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Dohges, Hehee, Peeskie, Van Buskiek, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — -None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, advised by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, dismissing the bill of complaint which sought an injunction to prevent the defendants-respondents from obstructing the natural flow of the waters of a stream at a point above lands of complainant-appellant. The vice-chancellor held that the proofs adduced by the appellant failed to sustain the cause of action set out in the hill of complaint.

A careful consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the court below was correct in the finding on the facts, and the decree should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Dohges, Hehee, Peeskie, Van Buskiek, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — -None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A. 165, 117 N.J. Eq. 452, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falconer-v-ricker-realty-co-nj-1935.