In Re Tatnall

146 A. 918, 104 N.J. Eq. 486, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 536
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 20, 1929·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll, and reported in 102 N. J. Eq. 445.

. For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenohard, Kalisoh, Black, Campbell, White, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Parker, Lloyd, JJ. 2.

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

In Re Tatnall, 146 A. 918, 104 N.J. Eq. 486, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 536 (N.J. 1929).

146 A. 918 (In Re Tatnall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Bakers Basin Realty Co.
350 A.2d 236 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
Dillard Homes, Inc. v. Carroll
152 So. 2d 738 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. Belk
158 A.2d 35 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1960)
Hamilton v. Memorial Hospital
84 A.2d 660 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)