Case ID: nj-eq_125/html/0348-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph P. Rosenfeld, complainant-appellant, v. Roebling Coal Co., Inc., a corporation of New York, et al., defendants-respondents.
    [Submitted February term, 1939.
    Decided April 21st, 1939.]
    
      Mr. Abraham M. Herman, for the complainant-appellant.
    
      Mr. Charles C. Pilgrim, for the defendants-respondents.
   Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined the record and the arguments of counsel in this cause. The conclusion of the learned vice-chancellor, who dismissed the complainant’s hill seeking a receiver for the defendant company, was in all respects proper, because the bill lacked proofs and was insufficient.

The decree of dismissal is, therefore, affirmed.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.