In re Ganey
119 A. 925, 94 N.J. Eq. 502, 9 Stock. 502, 1923 N.J. LEXIS 669
Opinion
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Fielder.
For affirmance — Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Ivalisci-i, Black, Katzenbach, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk—15.
For reversal—Hone.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re Ganey, 119 A. 925, 94 N.J. Eq. 502, 9 Stock. 502, 1923 N.J. LEXIS 669 (N.J. 1923).
119 A. 925 (In re Ganey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mowery v. Mowery
118 A.2d 49 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Greenspan v. Slate
92 A.2d 47 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Hillsdale Nat. Bank v. Sansone
78 A.2d 441 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)
STATE BY PARSONS v. Standard Oil Co.
74 A.2d 565 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1950)
Marsh v. Scott
63 A.2d 275 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1949)
Meier v. Planer
152 A. 246 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1930)