Wilson v. Anthony

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wilson v. Anthony

78 A. 1135, 75 N.J. Eq. 299, 5 Buchanan 299, 1909 N.J. LEXIS 310

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 1, 1909·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Vice-Chancellor Howell having denied an application for preliminary injunction in this case (Wilson v. Anthony, 72 N. J. Eq. (2 Buch.) 836), the defendant demurred to the bill, and, upon hearing, the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. From the decree dismissing the bill the present appeal is taken.

The decree of dismissal should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed by Vice-Chancellor Howell in denying the application for injunction.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Dill—15. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

Vice-Chancellor Howell having denied an application for preliminary injunction in this case (Wilson v. Anthony, 72 N. J. Eq. (2 Buch.) 836), the defendant demurred to the bill, and, upon hearing, the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. From the decree dismissing the bill the present appeal is taken.

The decree of dismissal should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed by Vice-Chancellor Howell in denying the application for injunction.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Dill—15. For reversal—None.

Wilson v. Anthony, 78 A. 1135, 75 N.J. Eq. 299, 5 Buchanan 299, 1909 N.J. LEXIS 310 (N.J. 1909).

Pincite

78 A. 1135 (Wilson v. Anthony) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related