Merkel v. Merkel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Merkel v. Merkel

101 A. 1054, 87 N.J. Eq. 653, 2 Stock. 653, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 463

DecidedJune 18, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A. 1054 (Merkel v. Merkel) 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

Merkel v. Merkel, 101 A. 1054, 87 N.J. Eq. 653, 2 Stock. 653, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 463 (N.J. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the court of chancery discharging á restraining order that was in effect a preliminary injunction. The categorical denial by the defendant of the misrepresentation on which the bill is founded would of itself justify the order that has been appealed from.’ The fact that the vice-chancellor upon weighing the evidence found for the respondent, clearly cannot weaken the respondent’s case. The correctness of the Vice-chancellor’s conclusions as to this is not now under review, as it would be if the appeal were from a decree made upon final hearing.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance—Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, .Kalisch, Black, White, Heprenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner—13. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the court of chancery discharging á restraining order that was in effect a preliminary injunction. The categorical denial by the defendant of the misrepresentation on which the bill is founded would of itself justify the order that has been appealed from.’ The fact that the vice-chancellor upon weighing the evidence found for the respondent, clearly cannot weaken the respondent’s case. The correctness of the Vice-chancellor’s conclusions as to this is not now under review, as it would be if the appeal were from a decree made upon final hearing.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance—Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, .Kalisch, Black, White, Heprenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner—13. For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A. 1054, 87 N.J. Eq. 653, 2 Stock. 653, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merkel-v-merkel-nj-1917.