Murphy v. Guantanamo Sugar Co.
Ruth K. Murphy Et Al., Complainants-Respondents, v. Guantanamo Sugar Company, Defendant-Appellant; John P. Wessel, Et Al., Complainants-Respondents, Guantanamo Sugar Company, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The final decree (February 8th, 1944) in each cause is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Yiee-Chan *507 cellor Fielder, which is reported at 134 N. J. Eq. 271; 35 Atl. Rep. (2d) 215.
We have examined the application which was made to and denied by the Vice-Chancellor for a rehearing and reargument and we, too, conclude that the application is without merit. Hence the order (February 8th, 1944) in each cause denying the application is affirmed.
We pause to observe that there is judicial sanction for the allowance of compensation for the necessary services of certified public accountants.
Cintas v. American Car and Foundry Co., 135 N. J. Eq. 305; 37 Atl. Rep. (2d) 205. Cf. Christensen v. Christensen, 133 N. J. Eq. 347; 32 Atl. Rep. (2d) 362.
The allowance of such a fee was, under the facts of the Wessel Case, proper.
Bespondents are entitled to their costs on the stated decrees and orders.
Ho. 212 with Ho. 213— For affirmance — Tiib Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bobine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, Bafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 15.
For reversed — Hone.
Ho. 213 with Ho. 212— For affirmance — Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Bodine, Donges, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, Eafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 11.
For modification — Parker, Case, Heher, Colie, JJ. 4.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.