Wootton Hotel Corp. v. Wootton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wootton Hotel Corp. v. Wootton

192 A. 36, 118 N.J.L. 185, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 291

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided April 30, 1937·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the trial judge that the defendants failed to disclose facts which entitle them to defend. It was proper that the answer with its separate defenses should be stricken and that summary judgment for possession should be entered for the plaintiff.

Judgment below will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 16.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the trial judge that the defendants failed to disclose facts which entitle them to defend. It was proper that the answer with its separate defenses should be stricken and that summary judgment for possession should be entered for the plaintiff.

Judgment below will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 16.

For reversal — None.

Wootton Hotel Corp. v. Wootton, 192 A. 36, 118 N.J.L. 185, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 291 (N.J. 1937).

Pincite

192 A. 36 (Wootton Hotel Corp. v. Wootton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.