Manning v. Home Building and Supply Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Manning v. Home Building and Supply Co.

130 A. 724, 98 N.J. Eq. 722, 13 Stock. 722, 2 N.J. Misc. 623, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 585

DecidedOctober 19, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A. 724 (Manning v. Home Building and Supply 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

Manning v. Home Building and Supply Co., 130 A. 724, 98 N.J. Eq. 722, 13 Stock. 722, 2 N.J. Misc. 623, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 585 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is admitted, as expressly set forth in respondent’s brief, that the defendant, Herbert C. McVoy, in his individual capacity, set up no interest in the property in question, and that he should therefore not be included individually in that portion of the decree which orders confirmation deeds to be given, and that the decree of the court of chancery should be modified in this respect, leaving its provisions as to such deeds, however, as to the defendants, Home Building and Supply Company, and Herbert McVoy and Mary Mc-Voy, two of the trustees on dissolution, in full force and effect.

Subject to this modification, which is hereby directed, the decree of the court of chancery is affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the learned vice-chancellor, who advised it.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Bus-kirk, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

It is admitted, as expressly set forth in respondent’s brief, that the defendant, Herbert C. McVoy, in his individual capacity, set up no interest in the property in question, and that he should therefore not be included individually in that portion of the decree which orders confirmation deeds to be given, and that the decree of the court of chancery should be modified in this respect, leaving its provisions as to such deeds, however, as to the defendants, Home Building and Supply Company, and Herbert McVoy and Mary Mc-Voy, two of the trustees on dissolution, in full force and effect.

Subject to this modification, which is hereby directed, the decree of the court of chancery is affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the learned vice-chancellor, who advised it.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Bus-kirk, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A. 724, 98 N.J. Eq. 722, 13 Stock. 722, 2 N.J. Misc. 623, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-home-building-and-supply-co-nj-1925.