Porch v. Agnew Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Porch v. Agnew Co.

65 A. 485, 71 N.J. Eq. 305, 1906 N.J. LEXIS 182

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 19, 1906·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The orders of the court of chancery appealed from are affirmed, with the remark that the observations of the learned vice-chancellor respecting the influence of sections 15 and 28 of the Mechanics’ Lien act (P. L. 1\898 p. 550) upon the relative priority of the mechanics’ lien of the Du Parquet & Mense Company and the mortgage of C. M. Busch were not necessary to a decision of the question involved.

Hpon the soundness of these observations opinion is expressed.

For affirmance—The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Port, Garretson, Hendrickson,- Pitney, Swayze, Reed, Bogert, Vre- . DENBURGH, VbOOM, GREEN, GRAY, DlLL—14. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The orders of the court of chancery appealed from are affirmed, with the remark that the observations of the learned vice-chancellor respecting the influence of sections 15 and 28 of the Mechanics’ Lien act (P. L. 1\898 p. 550) upon the relative priority of the mechanics’ lien of the Du Parquet & Mense Company and the mortgage of C. M. Busch were not necessary to a decision of the question involved.

Hpon the soundness of these observations opinion is expressed.

For affirmance—The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Port, Garretson, Hendrickson,- Pitney, Swayze, Reed, Bogert, Vre- . DENBURGH, VbOOM, GREEN, GRAY, DlLL—14. For reversal—None.

Porch v. Agnew Co., 65 A. 485, 71 N.J. Eq. 305, 1906 N.J. LEXIS 182 (N.J. 1906).

Pincite

65 A. 485 (Porch v. Agnew Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related