Anderson v. Broad Street National Bank
Arthur J. Anderson, administrator, &c., complainant-respondent v. Broad Street National Bank of Trenton
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.
We concur in the view expressed by the learned vice-chancellor in his opinion filed in this cause, that the case is indistinguishable in principle from Sullivan v. Maroney, 77 N. J. Eq. 565, and that that decision is therefore controlling.
The decree will be affirmed.
*332 For. affirm cunee — The Chief-Justice, Sway.ze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Mtnturn, Kalisci-i, Black, White, HepPENHEniEB, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson — 14.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 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.