Case ID: nj-eq_101/html/0304-01.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

Walter Reade, complainant-appellant, v. Thomas F. McKenna, defendant-respondent.
    [Argued February 10th, 1927.
    Decided May 16th, 1927.]
    • On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Berry, whose opinion is reported in 99 Ñ.- J. Eq. 76k.
    
    
      Mr. Herbert J. Hannoch, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. John Dreiven, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The circumstances of the case are fully set out in the opinion filed by the learned vicemhancellor, ubi supra. In our view it is sufficient for an affirmance to say that his finding that the contract had been abandoned by mutual assent of the defendant and the authorized agent of complainant, is fully justified by the evidence. This makes it unnecessary to go into the other phases of the case.

The decree will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Van Bus-kirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ.‘ 12.

For reversal — None.