Schultz v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Schultz v. Johnson

160 A. 379, 110 N.J. Eq. 566, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 820

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 16, 1932·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

*569 Per Curiam.

The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Learning.

The grounds stated by him for refusing a preliminary injunction go to the root of the case, and his decision to dismiss the bill as not showing a ease for equitable relief was a necessary result of the reasoning contained in the opinion, which we adopt as adequate for an affirmance of the decree under review.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Tbenchaed, Paeeee, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Van Buskibk, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

*569 Per Curiam.

The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Learning.

The grounds stated by him for refusing a preliminary injunction go to the root of the case, and his decision to dismiss the bill as not showing a ease for equitable relief was a necessary result of the reasoning contained in the opinion, which we adopt as adequate for an affirmance of the decree under review.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Tbenchaed, Paeeee, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Van Buskibk, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Schultz v. Johnson, 160 A. 379, 110 N.J. Eq. 566, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 820 (N.J. 1932).

Pincite

160 A. 379 (Schultz v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related