Morvay v. Gressman

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Morvay v. Gressman

103 A.2d 22, 29 N.J. Super. 508

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 8, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 103 A.2d 22 (Morvay v. Gressman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morvay v. Gressman, 103 A.2d 22, 29 N.J. Super. 508 (N.J. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

29 N.J. Super. 508 (1954) 103 A.2d 22

ISADORE MORVAY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MARTHA GRESSMAN AND MARY A. ANGELO, ADMINISTRATRIX ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued February 1, 1954. Decided February 8, 1954.

*509 Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

Mr. Harry R. Coulomb argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant (Messrs. Israel Davidow and John Rauffenbart, attorneys).

Mr. Robert G. Howell argued the cause for the defendants-respondents.

*514 PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the foregoing opinion of Judge Haneman.

An allowance of $250 is made to counsel for the respondent, Martha Gressman, for services on this appeal.

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

29 N.J. Super. 508 (1954) 103 A.2d 22

ISADORE MORVAY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MARTHA GRESSMAN AND MARY A. ANGELO, ADMINISTRATRIX ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued February 1, 1954. Decided February 8, 1954.

*509 Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

Mr. Harry R. Coulomb argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant (Messrs. Israel Davidow and John Rauffenbart, attorneys).

Mr. Robert G. Howell argued the cause for the defendants-respondents.

*514 PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the foregoing opinion of Judge Haneman.

An allowance of $250 is made to counsel for the respondent, Martha Gressman, for services on this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.2d 22, 29 N.J. Super. 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morvay-v-gressman-njsuperctappdiv-1954.

Opinion

ISADORE MORVAY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MARTHA GRESSMAN AND MARY A. ANGELO, ADMINISTRATRIX ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

ISADORE MORVAY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MARTHA GRESSMAN AND MARY A. ANGELO, ADMINISTRATRIX ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.