Katzin v. Kruvant-Mayzel Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Katzin v. Kruvant-Mayzel Co.

163 A. 900, 112 N.J. Eq. 290, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 945

DecidedJanuary 31, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A. 900 (Katzin v. Kruvant-Mayzel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Katzin v. Kruvant-Mayzel Co., 163 A. 900, 112 N.J. Eq. 290, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 945 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Berry. We have considered the allowance of counsel fee made by the vice-chancellor, and find nothing in the record to indicate that it was excessive. We therefore conclude it should not be disturbed.

’ For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Teenchaed, Pabkee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Beogan, Hehee, Kays, Heteield, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Berry. We have considered the allowance of counsel fee made by the vice-chancellor, and find nothing in the record to indicate that it was excessive. We therefore conclude it should not be disturbed.

’ For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Teenchaed, Pabkee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Beogan, Hehee, Kays, Heteield, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A. 900, 112 N.J. Eq. 290, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katzin-v-kruvant-mayzel-co-nj-1933.