Millville Improvement Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
The Millville Improvement Company, and v. The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, and
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Grey, who advised it.
This affirmance is, however, without prejudice to the parties in respect to any application they may be advised to make in *672 the court of chancery, when the cause is remitted, as to the mode of sale of the mortgaged premises directed by the decree.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chibe-Justice, Van Syckel, Dixon, Garrison, Collins, Fort, Garretson, Hendrickson, Bogert, Adams, Vredenburgh—12.
For reversal—None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.