Maturi v. Fay
129 A. 185, 98 N.J. Eq. 377, 13 Stock. 377, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 617
Opinion
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Lewis in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenoi-iard, Parker, Black, Katzbnbaoh, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 13.
For reversal — -None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Maturi v. Fay, 129 A. 185, 98 N.J. Eq. 377, 13 Stock. 377, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 617 (N.J. 1925).
129 A. 185 (Maturi v. Fay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stehr v. Sawyer
180 A.2d 161 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
Robinson-Shore Development Co. v. Gallagher
138 A.2d 726 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1958)
Robinson-Shore Development Co. v. Gallagher
133 A.2d 353 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
DIAL PRESS, INC. v. Phillips
93 A.2d 195 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Lizak v. Rottenbucher
53 A.2d 362 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1947)
Levy v. Massachusetts Accident Co.
2 A.2d 341 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1938)
Van Buren v. Fine
139 A. 486 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1927)
Foote v. Scarlett
134 A. 865 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1926)