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

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 31, 1933·Published

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.

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

Pincite

163 A. 900 (Katzin v. Kruvant-Mayzel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.