Katzenbach v. Armstrong Cork Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Katzenbach v. Armstrong Cork Co.

140 A. 920, 102 N.J. Eq. 333, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 602

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 6, 1928·Published

Opinion

*334 Pee Oueiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, and reported in 99 N. J. Eq. 82.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenohaed, Pakkee, Mintuen, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskiek, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Deak, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

*334 Pee Oueiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, and reported in 99 N. J. Eq. 82.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenohaed, Pakkee, Mintuen, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskiek, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Deak, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Katzenbach v. Armstrong Cork Co., 140 A. 920, 102 N.J. Eq. 333, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 602 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

140 A. 920 (Katzenbach v. Armstrong Cork Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.