History
  • No items yet
midpage
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

Case Details

Case Name: Rosenfeld v. Roebling Coal Co., Inc.
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Apr 21, 1939
Citation: 125 N.J. Eq. 348
Court Abbreviation: N.J.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.