In Re Cooley
143 A. 916, 103 N.J. Eq. 377, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 675
Opinion
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan, and reported in 95 N. J. Eq. 485.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Paekee, Mintubn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskiek, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In Re Cooley, 143 A. 916, 103 N.J. Eq. 377, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 675 (N.J. 1928).
143 A. 916 (In Re Cooley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kerpelman
420 A.2d 940 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
Delaware River and Bay Auth. v. INTERNATIONAL ORG. ETC.
211 A.2d 789 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1965)
In Re Wholesale, C., Salesmen's Union No. 20378
6 A.2d 660 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1939)