LAW.coLAW.co

Charles S. Hinchman, complainant-respondent, v. Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, defendant-appellant

New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals1915-06-14
84 N.J. Eq. 504

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

So far as the decree appealed from provides for the appointment of a receiver, and the sequestration of the property of appellant company located within the State of New Jersey,-we think it cannot be sustained. The remaining portions of the decree are justified by the facts proved; and to that extent the decree will be affirmed. The respondent is entitled to costs.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — None.

For modification — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgh, White, Terhune, Williams — 13.