Riverside Apartment Corp. v. Capitol Construction Co.

110 N.J. Eq. 67
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 1, 1932·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, and reported in 107 N. J. Eq. 405.

On appeal of Junction Milling Company — ■

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Kerney, JJ. 15.

For reversal — -None.

On appeal of Mowre Lager and Max Platt — •

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Kerney, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

[68] On appeal of West Bergen Trust Company—

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Bodine, Daly, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Wells, Kerney, JJ. 12.

For modification — Case, Donges, Dear, JJ. 3.

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

Riverside Apartment Corp. v. Capitol Construction Co., 110 N.J. Eq. 67 (N.J. 1932).

110 N.J. Eq. 67 (Riverside Apartment Corp. v. Capitol Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Niebuhr
2 A.2d 46 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1938)