Morrow v. Smith

170 A. 607, 115 N.J. Eq. 310
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 5, 1934·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated by Vice-Chancellor Berry in an opinion reported in 118 N. J. Eq. 12. By so doing, this court is not to be understood as approving the utterances of the learned vice-chancellor not pertinent to the disposition of the case and embodied in the last paragraph commencing on page 23 of the report and concluding on page 24. Suffice it to say that since the parties were before the court and it had jurisdiction it could, by virtue of the statute, reform an informality in the proceeding.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Morrow v. Smith, 170 A. 607, 115 N.J. Eq. 310 (N.J. 1934).

170 A. 607 (Morrow v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bigel v. Brandtjen Kluge, Inc.
20 A.2d 320 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1941)
Central-Penn, Bank v. N.J. Fidelity
182 A. 262 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1935)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kline
78 F.2d 618 (Ninth Circuit, 1935)