Ginsberg v. Eastern Life Insurance Co. of New York

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ginsberg v. Eastern Life Insurance Co. of New York

184 A. 348, 120 N.J. Eq. 110

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 5, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 A. 348 (Ginsberg v. Eastern Life Insurance Co. of New York) 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

Ginsberg v. Eastern Life Insurance Co. of New York, 184 A. 348, 120 N.J. Eq. 110 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree under review is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the learned vice-chancellor in his conclusions.

Eeference is made, in the last paragraph of the court’s opinion, to whether the complainant below would, under the circumstances of this case, be entitled to an estoppel if the court had reached a different result upon the other matters in controversy. The learned vice-chancellor recognized that a determination of this point was not necessary for the disposition of the case and we leave that question as it is without comment, neither approving nor disproving of what the court below said in this particular. 1

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 7.

For reversal — Donges, Heher, Perskie, WolesEeil, Eaeeerty, JJ. 5.

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

Per Curiam.

The decree under review is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the learned vice-chancellor in his conclusions.

Eeference is made, in the last paragraph of the court’s opinion, to whether the complainant below would, under the circumstances of this case, be entitled to an estoppel if the court had reached a different result upon the other matters in controversy. The learned vice-chancellor recognized that a determination of this point was not necessary for the disposition of the case and we leave that question as it is without comment, neither approving nor disproving of what the court below said in this particular. 1

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 7.

For reversal — Donges, Heher, Perskie, WolesEeil, Eaeeerty, JJ. 5.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A. 348, 120 N.J. Eq. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsberg-v-eastern-life-insurance-co-of-new-york-nj-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack