Millville Improvement Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.

47 A. 1132, 61 N.J. Eq. 671, 1900 N.J. LEXIS 224
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 19, 1900·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Millville Improvement Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 47 A. 1132, 61 N.J. Eq. 671, 1900 N.J. LEXIS 224 (N.J. 1900).

47 A. 1132 (Millville Improvement Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Applegate v. Quackenbush
61 A.2d 577 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1948)