Seidel v. Mills

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Seidel v. Mills

96 A. 899, 84 N.J. Eq. 507, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 399

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 14, 1915·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

'The decree of the court of chancery will be affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson.

Some comment is made in the brief (there was no oral argument) as to certain features with respect to which it is claimed the court below misapprehended some of the facts. We find it unnecessary to consider this claim specifically, for, assuming it to be well founded, there is nothing in the case to impair in any way the correctness of the result reached.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgh, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams —14. For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

'The decree of the court of chancery will be affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson.

Some comment is made in the brief (there was no oral argument) as to certain features with respect to which it is claimed the court below misapprehended some of the facts. We find it unnecessary to consider this claim specifically, for, assuming it to be well founded, there is nothing in the case to impair in any way the correctness of the result reached.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgh, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams —14. For reversal — None.

Seidel v. Mills, 96 A. 899, 84 N.J. Eq. 507, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 399 (N.J. 1915).

Pincite

96 A. 899 (Seidel v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.