Vanderbilt v. Mial

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Vanderbilt v. Mial

90 A. 317, 86 N.J.L. 375, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 277

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 16, 1914·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons firstly and secondly expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chancellor in the case of Davis v. Mial, at the present term of this court, ante p. 167.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalis on, Bogert, Yredenburgii, Congdon, White, Heppenheimer, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Hone.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons firstly and secondly expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chancellor in the case of Davis v. Mial, at the present term of this court, ante p. 167.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalis on, Bogert, Yredenburgii, Congdon, White, Heppenheimer, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Hone.

Vanderbilt v. Mial, 90 A. 317, 86 N.J.L. 375, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 277 (N.J. 1914).

Pincite

90 A. 317 (Vanderbilt v. Mial) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.