Rosenfeld v. Roebling Coal Co., Inc.

5 A.2d 695, 125 N.J. Eq. 348, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 659

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined the record and the arguments of counsel in this cause. The conclusion of the learned vice-chancellor, who dismissed the complainant’s hill seeking a receiver for the defendant company, was in all respects proper, because the bill lacked proofs and was insufficient.

The decree of dismissal is, therefore, affirmed.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.