Case ID: nj-eq_104/html/0207-01.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

Township of Maplewood and William P. Dickson, complainants-appellants, v. Max Margolis, defendant-respondent.
    [Submitted October 26th, 1928.
    Decided February 5th, 1929.]
    
      Mr. A. P. Bachman, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Edward L. Davis, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Of the five points made in the opinion filed by the learned vice-chancellor, the first two relate more particularly to the discharge of the injunction, and the other three bear upon the dismissal of the bill. We agree that the bill was properly dismissed, and for the three latter reasons. Reaching this result, the matter of discharging the preliminary injunction becomes academic.

In view of the unnecessarily protracted character of this litigation (see 6 N. J. Mis. R. 131; 104 N. J. Law 177; 136 Atl. Rep. 707; 101 N. J. Eq. 773; 42 Sup. Ct. 924), the award of counsel fee against appellants was eminently proper.

The decree will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Teenchaed, Pae-KEE, KALISCH, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, WHITE, Van Buskiek, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.