Ross v. Ross

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ross v. Ross

105 A. 894, 89 N.J. Eq. 587, 4 Stock. 587, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 348

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided October 11, 1918·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the view of the vice-chancellor that the proofs submitted fully justify the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the relief sought by him in this case. The decree 'of divorce which the appellant seeks to review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur in the view of the vice-chancellor that the proofs submitted fully justify the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the relief sought by him in this case. The decree 'of divorce which the appellant seeks to review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 12.

For reversal — None.

Ross v. Ross, 105 A. 894, 89 N.J. Eq. 587, 4 Stock. 587, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 348 (N.J. 1918).

Pincite

105 A. 894 (Ross v. Ross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.