Reade v. McKenna

137 A. 918, 101 N.J. Eq. 304, 16 Stock. 304, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 580
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 16, 1927·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The circumstances of the case are fully set out in the opinion filed by the learned vicemhancellor, ubi supra. In our view it is sufficient for an affirmance to say that his finding that the contract had been abandoned by mutual assent of the defendant and the authorized agent of complainant, is fully justified by the evidence. This makes it unnecessary to go into the other phases of the case.

The decree will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Van Bus-kirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ.‘ 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Reade v. McKenna, 137 A. 918, 101 N.J. Eq. 304, 16 Stock. 304, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 580 (N.J. 1927).

137 A. 918 (Reade v. McKenna) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marioni v. 94 Broadway, Inc.
866 A.2d 208 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2005)
Paradiso v. Mazejy
69 A.2d 15 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1949)