Rosenfeld v. Roebling Coal Co., Inc.
125 N.J. Eq. 348
N.J.
1939
Check Treatment

We have carefully examined the record and the arguments of counsel in this cause. The conclusion of the learned vice-chancellor, who dismissed the complainant's bill seeking a receiver for the defendant company, was in all respects proper, because the bill lacked proofs and was insufficient.

The decree of dismissal is, therefore, affirmed.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None. *Page 349