Millville Improvement Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
This text of 47 A. 1132 (Millville Improvement Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass 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.
Opinion
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Grey, who advised it.
This affirmance is, however, without prejudice to the parties in respect to any application they may be advised to make in [672]*672the court of chancery, when the cause is remitted, as to the mode of sale of the mortgaged premises directed by the decree.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chibe-Justice, Van Syckel, Dixon, Garrison, Collins, Fort, Garretson, Hendrickson, Bogert, Adams, Vredenburgh—12.
For reversal—None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
47 A. 1132, 61 N.J. Eq. 671, 1900 N.J. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millville-improvement-co-v-pittsburgh-plate-glass-co-nj-1900.