Taylor v. Borden

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Taylor v. Borden

91 A. 1071, 82 N.J. Eq. 369, 12 Buchanan 369, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 374

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided October 16, 1913·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The testimony in the cause fully sustains the facts found by the learned vice-chancellor. Upon those facts the complainant was clearly entitled to the relief granted to him. The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Yoorhees, Kalisch, YredenBURGH, CONGDON, TeRI-IUNE, HePPENI-IETMER—12. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The testimony in the cause fully sustains the facts found by the learned vice-chancellor. Upon those facts the complainant was clearly entitled to the relief granted to him. The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Yoorhees, Kalisch, YredenBURGH, CONGDON, TeRI-IUNE, HePPENI-IETMER—12. For reversal—None.

Taylor v. Borden, 91 A. 1071, 82 N.J. Eq. 369, 12 Buchanan 369, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 374 (N.J. 1913).

Pincite

91 A. 1071 (Taylor v. Borden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.