General
H. B. Claflin Company, complainant and appellant, v. Julius Freudenthal et al., defendants and respondents
60 N.J. Eq. 483·New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals·1900·NJ
Brief incoming
Source-anchored Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
H. B. Claflin Company, complainant and appellant, v. Julius Freudenthal et al., defendants and respondents.
[Filed June 18th, 1900.]
On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Emery, whose opinion is reported in 13 Dick. Ch. Rep. 298.
Mr. Beuben M. Hart and Mr. Charles J. Roe, fox the appellant.
Mr. Eugene Stevenson, for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Emery in the opinion below.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee-Justice, Van Syckel, Dixon, Garrison, Gummere, Ludlow, Collins, Bogert, Hendrickson, Adams, Vredenburgh, Voorhees — 13.
For reversal — Hone.