Hartman v. Hartman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hartman v. Hartman

71 A. 417, 74 N.J. Eq. 851, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 286

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 16, 1908·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case involves only questions of fact. We agree with the conclusions of the learned vice-chancellor. The decree under review should therefore be affirmed.

The application for counsel fee is denied.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reep, Trencharp, Parker, Bergen, Voori-iees,-Minturn, Bogert, Vrepenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill —16. For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

This case involves only questions of fact. We agree with the conclusions of the learned vice-chancellor. The decree under review should therefore be affirmed.

The application for counsel fee is denied.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reep, Trencharp, Parker, Bergen, Voori-iees,-Minturn, Bogert, Vrepenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill —16. For reversal — None.

Hartman v. Hartman, 71 A. 417, 74 N.J. Eq. 851, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 286 (N.J. 1908).

Pincite

71 A. 417 (Hartman v. Hartman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.