Tantum v. Keller
126 A. 925, 96 N.J. Eq. 672, 11 Stock. 672, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 414
Opinion
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion hied in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan.
For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays-—15.
For reversal—None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tantum v. Keller, 126 A. 925, 96 N.J. Eq. 672, 11 Stock. 672, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 414 (N.J. 1924).
126 A. 925 (Tantum v. Keller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Coniglio v. Hansl
371 N.W.2d 273 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1985)
Pruner and Rees v. Brown
223 S.E.2d 890 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1976)
Wellmore Builders, Inc. v. Wannier
140 A.2d 422 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
Schnakenberg v. Gibraltar Savings and Loan Ass'n
117 A.2d 191 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Holmes v. Harris
110 A.2d 329 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1954)
Matlack v. Arend
63 A.2d 812 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1949)