Romanoff Caviar Co. v. Hansen

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Romanoff Caviar Co. v. Hansen

8 A.2d 604, 126 N.J. Eq. 275, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 609

DecidedOctober 16, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.2d 604 (Romanoff Caviar Co. v. Hansen) 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

Romanoff Caviar Co. v. Hansen, 8 A.2d 604, 126 N.J. Eq. 275, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 609 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These cases present cross-appeals from a decree of chancery dated December 30th, 1938, and advised by Vice-Chancellor Sooy.

We have carefully considered the proofs, the law applicable thereto, the conclusions of the vice-chancellor, under date of October 31st, 1938 (in these conclusions the vice-chancellor briefly states the results of the issue theretofore determined in this cause, and then, pursuant to written stipulation in which counsel for the respective parties, with approval of the court, assented to jurisdiction, procedure and the specific issues to be determined, disposed of the issues so submitted), the arguments and briefs of counsel for the parties, and conclude that the learned vice-chancellor reached a right result.

Accordingly, the decree under review is affirmed in each case.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Rafeerty, Hague, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

These cases present cross-appeals from a decree of chancery dated December 30th, 1938, and advised by Vice-Chancellor Sooy.

We have carefully considered the proofs, the law applicable thereto, the conclusions of the vice-chancellor, under date of October 31st, 1938 (in these conclusions the vice-chancellor briefly states the results of the issue theretofore determined in this cause, and then, pursuant to written stipulation in which counsel for the respective parties, with approval of the court, assented to jurisdiction, procedure and the specific issues to be determined, disposed of the issues so submitted), the arguments and briefs of counsel for the parties, and conclude that the learned vice-chancellor reached a right result.

Accordingly, the decree under review is affirmed in each case.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Rafeerty, Hague, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.2d 604, 126 N.J. Eq. 275, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanoff-caviar-co-v-hansen-nj-1939.