Case ID: nj-eq_60/html/0484-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathaniel Shipman et al., complainants and appellants, v. George R. Lord et al., defendants and respondents. Nathaniel Shipman et al., complainants and respondents, v. George R. Lord et al., defendants and appellants.
    [Filed June 18th, 1900.]
    On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevens, whose opinion is reported in Shipman v. Lord, 13 Dick. Ch. Rep. 380.
    
    
      Messrs. F. A. & W. T. Bay, for Shipman et al.
    
      Mr. Wesley B. Stout, for Lord et al.
   Per Curiam.

These were cross-appeals from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevens. We think the decree right, and it is affirmed, for the reasons given by the vice-chancellor in his opinion in the court below.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief-Justice, Van Syckel, Dixon, Garrison, Gummere, Ludlow, Collins, Bogert, Hendrickson, Adams, Vredenburgh, Voorhees — 13.

For reversal — -Hone.