Reade v. McKenna

137 A. 918, 101 N.J. Eq. 304, 16 Stock. 304, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 580
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMay 16, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A. 918, 101 N.J. Eq. 304, 16 Stock. 304, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reade-v-mckenna-nj-1927.