Miller v. Miller
58 A. 188, 66 N.J. Eq. 436, 21 Dickinson 436, 1903 N.J. LEXIS 320
Opinion
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated ini the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Reed in the court below.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Dixon, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgh — 8.
For reversal — Fort, Vroom, Green, Gray — 4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Miller v. Miller, 58 A. 188, 66 N.J. Eq. 436, 21 Dickinson 436, 1903 N.J. LEXIS 320 (N.J. 1904).
58 A. 188 (Miller v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Driver v. Producers Cooperative, Inc.
345 S.W.2d 16 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1961)
Holthusen v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co.
52 F. Supp. 125 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1943)
Usen v. Usen
13 A.2d 738 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1940)
Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Blumenthal
256 A.D. 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)
Rogers v. Hill
289 U.S. 582 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
60 F.2d 114 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Rogers v. Hill
60 F.2d 109 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Young v. Young
16 Pa. D. & C. 287 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1932)
Colley v. Sapp
1914 OK 221 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)