Norton v. Nathanson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Norton v. Nathanson

99 A. 1070, 86 N.J. Eq. 433, 1 Stock. 433, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 471

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 20, 1916·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Vice-Chancellor Baches, after a careful review of the testimony, reached the conclusion that the complainant had not sustained the burden of proving usury in the transactions set forth in her bill. In this conclusion we concur.

The decree of the court óf chancery is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Tayloe, Gardner — 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

Vice-Chancellor Baches, after a careful review of the testimony, reached the conclusion that the complainant had not sustained the burden of proving usury in the transactions set forth in her bill. In this conclusion we concur.

The decree of the court óf chancery is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Tayloe, Gardner — 14.

For reversal — None.

Norton v. Nathanson, 99 A. 1070, 86 N.J. Eq. 433, 1 Stock. 433, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 471 (N.J. 1916).

Pincite

99 A. 1070 (Norton v. Nathanson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related