Tave Construction Co., Inc. v. Wiesenfeld

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Tave Construction Co., Inc. v. Wiesenfeld

217 A.2d 140, 90 N.J. Super. 244

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 17, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 A.2d 140 (Tave Construction Co., Inc. v. Wiesenfeld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tave Construction Co., Inc. v. Wiesenfeld, 217 A.2d 140, 90 N.J. Super. 244 (N.J. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

90 N.J. Super. 244 (1966) 217 A.2d 140

TAVE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BENJAMIN WIESENFELD AND BESS WIESENFELD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND FRANKLYN B. SPIEZLE AND WINDSOR CONSTRUCTION CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued February 1, 1966. Decided February 17, 1966.

Before Judges SULLIVAN, LEWIS and KOLOVSKY.

Mr. Sidney M. Schreiber argued the cause for defendants-appellants (Messrs. Schreiber, Lancaster & Demos, attorneys; Mr. Schreiber, of counsel; Mr. Gerald W. Conway, on the brief).

Mr. David L. Greene argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons set forth in Judge Leonard's opinion in the Chancery Division, reported at 82 N.J. Super. 562.

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

90 N.J. Super. 244 (1966) 217 A.2d 140

TAVE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BENJAMIN WIESENFELD AND BESS WIESENFELD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND FRANKLYN B. SPIEZLE AND WINDSOR CONSTRUCTION CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued February 1, 1966. Decided February 17, 1966.

Before Judges SULLIVAN, LEWIS and KOLOVSKY.

Mr. Sidney M. Schreiber argued the cause for defendants-appellants (Messrs. Schreiber, Lancaster & Demos, attorneys; Mr. Schreiber, of counsel; Mr. Gerald W. Conway, on the brief).

Mr. David L. Greene argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons set forth in Judge Leonard's opinion in the Chancery Division, reported at 82 N.J. Super. 562.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.2d 140, 90 N.J. Super. 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tave-construction-co-inc-v-wiesenfeld-njsuperctappdiv-1966.

Opinion

TAVE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BENJAMIN WIESENFELD AND BESS WIESENFELD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND FRANKLYN B. SPIEZLE AND WINDSOR CONSTRUCTION CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

TAVE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BENJAMIN WIESENFELD AND BESS WIESENFELD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND FRANKLYN B. SPIEZLE AND WINDSOR CONSTRUCTION CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS.