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

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 20, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 A. 1070 (Norton v. Nathanson) 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.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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